Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Education (Lancashire)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robin Squire.]

Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd: One thing that all Lancashire Conservative Members and county councillors are determined upon is to do everything in their power to help to raise the educational standard of the children of their constituents and that is why I am so pleased to see many of my colleagues here today. I look forward to contributions, if there is time, by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins), and by my hon. Friends the Members for Wyre (Mr. Mans), for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson), for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) and for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). My hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) is, of course, performing his ministerial duties at the Treasury and is unable to attend. However, he knows my views on education in Lancashire and I know that he accepts the broad thrust of what I am about to say.
I am especially pleased to see my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), who will reply to the debate. He has been immensely helpful both to Lancashire Conservative Members and to Lancashire Conservative county councillors in all our endeavours to press the county to recognise the supreme importance of education. I know that what he says will be read with particular care by all our constituents who have children or grandchildren at school.
Over recent years, successive Conservative Governments have introduced some important policies on education. I mention in particular the introduction of parent governors and teacher governors, the local management of schools initiative, which has enabled schools rather than counties to make many decisions about their future, the national curriculum and the league tables. I am pleased by the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment that she will publish primary school performance tables from next spring. The Government have also given the important freedom to schools to go grant-maintained, about which I shall say a little more later.

Mr. Keith Mans: My hon. Friend has mentioned a number of excellent initiatives introduced by the Government. Does he agree that all those initiatives were opposed by the Labour party and, more specifically, by Labour-controlled Lancashire county council, which is depicted as saying no to education at every turn?

Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd: I agree with my hon. Friend. The other aspect with which I shall deal is that the council says no to funds that the Government have made available to supplement the money that it has to spend on education.
All the changes have given immense opportunities to schools to improve their standards and they have been of immense help. However, there is one point that is often not properly understood by the public. Education policy overall is a matter for the Government, but the amount that is spent by any county council on the schools under its control is a matter entirely for that county council. It is the council's decision; it is not a matter for Government.
The Government, of course, make generous provision to Lancashire county council from central taxation to add to what the council raises from the council tax and the local business rate. However, it is the county's decision whether it spends the extra money provided by the Government on education or on something else.

Mr. Mans: That might be a wrong decision.

Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd: Yes, indeed.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, despite what he is saying, capping has implications for the county council? It has to work within that level.

Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd: My real point—the hon. Gentleman will be able to comment on my speech in his contribution—is to ask whether the £26.6 million extra provided by the Government will be spent by the county on education in the coming financial year. Will all that—

Mr. Pike: Yes, it will.

Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd: It is interesting to hear, that because we have not heard it from the council. Two things cause prime concern to Conservative Members—I have just touched on one. The first is when the county fails to pass on all the increase that the Government have found for education to the most important of its services. The second is when the county fails to manage its bureaucracy properly and, compared with the number of teachers working in schools, keeps too many officials in county hall pushing paper.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that parents in Lancashire, especially of children of nursery age, will be appalled to know that Lancashire county council did not become one of the pilot local education authorities to take advantage of the Government's expansion of nursery education?

Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd: My hon. Friend has made a valid point. I must add that, in their work, he and Conservative county councillors in Lancashire make it a priority to point out to the county, which as we know is Labour-controlled, precisely what is going on.

Mr. Colin Pickthall: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman so soon, and I thank him for giving way. Does he recognise—in relation to the intervention from a sedentary position by the hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans)—that spending on


administration in education in Lancashire amounts to 1.6 per cent. of the total education budget, compared with the national average of 2.1 per cent?

Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd: I will comment later on what the hon. Gentleman has said.
The county's management of its funds for education over the years is a story of gross, in some cases outrageous, financial mismanagement. In 1994–95, it cut the schools budget by £5.1 million. As we know, last year the Government were able to increase their allocation to the county for education by only a modest amount—it was a tight settlement. Notwithstanding that, it was an increase, yet the county cut the schools budget by £19.2 million. It cut savagely what went to schools because it was not prepared to cut its education bureaucracy at county hall. Schools therefore suffered at the expense of officials in administration.
I find that remarkable, especially as, at this time, the Opposition are talking so much about the cost of administration in the national health service. For example, on 1 February at Prime Minister's questions, the Leader of the Opposition challenged the cost of administration in the health service and only yesterday those comments were repeated by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) in the debate on morale in the health service. Of course it should be remembered that she chose the services of a school that had opted out of a Labour council's control and was in a Tory borough outside the Labour-controlled borough where she lived. What are parents in Lancashire to make of it when they see what their Labour council does to them?
One must ask—this is where I come to the intervention of the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) who will perhaps comment on this—why it is that, despite the removal three years ago of colleges of further education from the county's control, the number of staff at county hall, which was already high then, has continued to increase.
Last year, parents and teachers were understandably concerned about the cuts that schools had to make. My hon. Friends, Conservative county councillors and I visited Ministers with responsibility for education, including my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, to make our concerns known. We lobbied hard. We also lobbied Treasury Ministers, because ultimately that is the point at which we must put on pressure.
Last autumn, there was a clear expectation that this year the Government would attach a higher priority to educational assistance to the county than they had been able to do in earlier years, yet, on 28 September, a disgraceful thing happened. Mr. Collier, the then chief education officer, wrote to all head teachers suggesting that the county might have to cut the schools budget by 8 per cent. We did not know what the Government settlement was to be then, but, in September, the county said that it might have to cut the budget by 8 per cent.
Mr. Collier has now retired. He was acting clearly on the political instructions of his Labour masters at county hall. It was an irresponsible thing to do. The letter generated fear, anger and frustration in everyone who read it.

Mr. Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that the political master on whose instructions Mr. Collier acted was the chairman of the local education authority, Labour Councillor Stan Wright, who sits for a ward in Blackpool, who has, during his leadership of education in Lancashire, been guilty of the most appalling irresponsibility, and who has continually tried to scare parents of Lancashire children?

Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd: Following what my hon. Friend says, I hope that all Lancashire parents will write to county councillor Wright. What was said in September was uncalled for as, in December, the Government announced that they would increase the county's allocation towards education costs by £26.6 million or 5.5 per cent. I hope that all parents will write to him insisting that that increase from the Government goes directly into education.

Mr. Mans: Into schools.

Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd: Into schools.
Again, reasonable people will be astonished by the county's reaction to the wonderful news of such a substantial increase. So far, its reaction has been this. In early January, it published a discussion paper that outlined possible cuts in primary and secondary school funding of £25.2 million. That was greeted by parents, teachers and Conservative county councillors with outrage and frustration. No doubt because of that clamour, the county recanted just a little. It modified its proposals to say that there might be a cut in education generally of only £6.7 million.

Mr. Harold Elletson: Is my hon. Friend aware that many parents in my constituency are extremely worried that, even if the county does not proceed with its initial proposed cuts of 8 per cent. and cuts the budget by only, as he said, £6 million, that will constitute a real threat to some of the most valued parts of school life, such as music and sports provision, books and many extracurricular activities? Would it not be disgraceful if those services were threatened as a direct result of the county council's managerial incompetence?

Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd: I agree with my hon. Friend. What I and I am sure any parent in Lancashire find perplexing is how any county council could propose cuts of £6.7 million in education when the Government have increased its share by £26.6 million. That is what County Councillor Stan Wright must answer.
I am fortunate in the timing of the debate, because the county must make a final decision about its funding on 22 February next week. I hope that, between now and then, parents, teachers and governors will write in the way I have suggested.
Any parent or teacher who is frustrated by the county's education funding has a method of escape from the problem. It is to persuade other parents in their school to request a ballot so that a vote can be taken on whether the school should become grant-maintained. In that way, they will avoid the enormous burden that schools indirectly bear for under-employed staff at county hall.
It is clear—the figures are available for anyone to see, although they vary from school to school—that a large school may benefit by many thousands of pounds every


year by saving what is withheld by the county for administration by county organisers. Figures show that, in Britain, grant-maintained schools spend on administration only half what the county spends. For many schools, that is therefore the way out of the county's mismanagement of its finances, and I hope that more Lancashire schools will follow that path.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: I think that Conservative Members pay too little attention to announcements by the county council, because they are too busy filling the soundwaves with their unjustified complaints about the county. Were this not so, they would know that the £26.6 million is all to be spent on schools, as the county council has made clear. I am pleased, however, that the parents, governors and teachers of Lancashire understand the issues far more clearly than Conservative Members do. They know whom to blame.
I was astounded to hear the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Sir M. Lennox-Boyd) say that the amount of money spent on education is entirely a matter for the county. The fact is that the Government set the parameters within which local authorities have to operate. The hon. Gentleman's astonishing statement suggests that the development of a rich imaginative life, which should form part of any good education, has taken root particularly effectively in his case.

Mr. Mans: Does the hon. Lady agree with her hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) that education should become the responsibility of Blackburn borough council and should be taken away from the county council because it has managed education so incompetently?

Mrs. Wise: My hon. Friend's views on unitary status for Blackburn are well known. They do not relate to any incompetence on the part of the county council. They arise from his view of a desirable structure for local government, and that view is not directed against the county council. Conservative Members should put that point to my hon. Friend, when they have the chance, and he will confirm what I am saying.
As I was saying, parents, teachers and governors clearly understand where the blame lies. I am pleased that they were alerted by the chairman of Lancashire education committee to what might be afoot, because their ensuing campaign has successfully prevented even worse excesses by the Government. It would have been no use waiting until decisions had been made and then complaining about those decisions. Far better to encourage a campaign to improve the quality of the Government's decision-making. The Government certainly need a lot of help in that respect.
My hon. Friends and I receive a steady stream of information and complaints from schools and parents in our constituencies—none of them directed at the county council. No school or parent in my constituency has directed any wrath at the county council. I recently received a typical such letter, which helpfully included the latest inspectors' report. It comes from Savick county primary school, whose head teacher has given me permission to use the information that he sent me, as he says,

to fight the complacency of the present Administration".
The head teacher says that he is sure that I will wish to celebrate, with him, the many good things that the inspectors found to say about the school. So I do. The school's achievements are legion, and are a great tribute to the staff and pupils. But the report clearly establishes that class sizes are far too great. The report points out that, at the crucial key stage 2, class sizes are enormous, all but one containing more than 35 pupils.
This of course is not the fault of the county council. It is the fault of inadequate funding for education generally. Unlike Ministers and the chief inspector, the inspectors who looked at Savick county primary do regard class sizes as crucial to delivering a good education. They say:
A combination of a reduction in the school's budget and the need to create a reserve fund has caused an increase in class sizes to over 35 at Key Stage 2. Some teaching areas are overcrowded, which not only affects teaching and learning but also health and safety, particularly in science and physical education.
The inspectors also say that financial control by the school is good; it continually seeks value for money. The recommendations of the most recent auditor's report have been put in place. Routine accounting is good and well maintained. The school, the report says, gives satisfactory value for money—yet the inspectors also say that the objectives of the staff and governors must include
finding ways of reducing the class sizes".
That is tantamount to saying that teachers should be not just good teachers, but magicians too.

Mr. Nigel Evans: As the hon. Lady well knows, it is not simply a matter of class sizes—otherwise, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) would not have sent his child past many state schools with smaller class sizes to the Oratory.
Does the hon. Lady agree that one way in which the county might make some savings is to stop campaigning in my constituency against schools that want to adopt grant-maintained status—including Archbishop Temple school, to which many of the parents in her constituency send their children?

Mrs. Wise: It was noticeable that the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale was unable earlier to answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) about administration costs in Lancashire. As he pointed out, they are below the national average. Until we hear a soundly based statistical rebuttal of that statement, Conservative Members should be quiet and cease their accusations against the county.

Mr. Nigel Evans: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You heard the question that I put to the hon. Lady. Is she not obliged to answer it?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): That is not a point of order. As the hon. Gentleman knows full well, it is entirely up to the hon. Lady how she chooses to answer.

Mrs. Wise: I have answered the hon. Gentleman in a way I think effective. My constituents will also think it effective. The hon. Gentleman is merely wasting time in this debate. If he has things to say, no doubt he will make a speech of his own.
The outstanding feature of the views expressed repeatedly to me by parents, teachers and governors is their condemnation of the lack of Government funding and of the lack of importance attached by the Government to education resources. The Government continually imply that teachers and governors must become magicians. All this is clearly understood in Preston, and is often expressed in correspondence by my constituents. They are not misled by the attempts of Lancashire Conservative Members to divert attention from the gross iniquities perpetrated by this Administration on the county council, which its doing its very best in lamentable circumstances.
It is a gross distortion of the truth to keep repeating that it is entirely up to the county council how much to spend on education. The people of Preston recognise that. I look forward to the day when Savick county primary school and all the other schools in my constituency will be able to respond to an Administration who attach proper priority to resources for education.

Mr. Robert Atkins: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise), who represents a borough that is arguably even more incompetent than the county council.
I am delighted to be associated with the initiative taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Sir M. Lennox-Boyd). It demonstrates again that on education, as on social services—about which my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) introduced a similar debate—it is Conservative Members of Parliament and county councillors in Lancashire who are really fighting for parents and children in the county.
The Government have in recent years increased the allocation to Lancashire year on year, yet the Labour-controlled county council has cut the schools budget by £5.1 million in 1994–95, by £19.2 million in 1995–96 and have proposed—we have heard nothing to the contrary to date—a £9 million cut in 1996–97. That information comes directly from the Conservative county councillors on Lancashire's education committee.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale said, we pressed my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and other Ministers to ensure that the mean and politically motivated attacks on our children's education were overcome by a further substantial increase this year. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, together with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), and Treasury Ministers recognised the concern of Conservative Members. Eventually, we got a substantial increase of some 5.5 per cent.—almost double the current rate of inflation.
When we pressed our case, the Government listened. That demonstrates the authority with which Lancashire Conservative Members fight the cause of Lancashire parents. It is up to Lancashire county council and its education committee to pass on the increase. We have heard suggestions that it will do so, but it is not the

information we have to hand. I would like to know what the county is going to do when it comes to the final decision on 22 February. The signs so far are that it will not. If it is to pass on the increase, it makes it even more reprehensible that Mr. Collier and the controlling group on the education committee have suggested that there will be one. If there is not to be a cut, they have been misleading everyone in the county.
Last year, every Conservative-controlled local education authority in the country met the teachers' pay rise and school budget increases, and some were even able to recruit more teachers. Why cannot Lancashire county council, which has one of the most top-heavy bureaucracies—across its whole administration—in the country, do the same? My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) asked a pertinent question: why does Blackburn, for example, want to remove itself from the control of the county council? Whatever the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) may say in public, we know what he says in private. My hon. Friend hit the nail on the head.
To take one issue, when will the local education authority in Lancashire address the scandal of surplus places in secondary schools, especially in areas such as Skelmersdale and Burnley?

Mr. Greg Pope: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Lancashire met the target set for surplus places by the Secretary of State in 1981 and 1987, which are the most recent targets for which figures are available?

Mr. Atkins: I am not going to comment in detail on the case, except to say that I am advised that there are surplus places in certain parts of our county. Our constituents are entitled to ask why the problem of surplus places in Skelmersdale and Burnley, which happen to be controlled by Labour councils or represented by Labour Members, is not being addressed, whereas in parts of the county represented by Conservatives it is. That question needs to be answered.
I congratulate Leyland St. Mary's school in my constituency, which went grant-maintained in January 1994 and has made great strides ever since. In the past, it was a good to average school, but it is now excellent. In the recent Ofsted report, inspectors picked out Leyland St. Mary's as one of the five best schools in the county. Lancashire Members know that Leyland is not the wealthiest part of the county. Inspectors described it as a school
well above the national average
and still improving. It was granted technology college status three months ago. I hope next month to open its new all-weather surface, funding for which has been obtained since grant-maintained status was achieved. That is a measure of what grant-maintained status can do for an ordinary school that has become an excellent school in Leyland. That was the parents' choice. I am pleased that they were able to make that choice, which I applaud.
However, in a recent ballot at Lostoch Hall high school in my constituency, there was the most extraordinary interference by the Labour county council and other Labour activists who had nothing to do with the school. It was not in the area that the person involved represented. A number of parents contacted me to complain about the


activities of those Labour representatives. I do not quibble with the result; that is a matter for the parents to decide. That is the key point; the result is immaterial. The Government have given the parents the choice to be able to decide what they want to do about their schools. I hope that their decision not to go grant-maintained was what they really wanted.
I question the local Labour party's involvement, especially in sending leaflets—some without an address on them—which intimidated or misled parents. I and Conservative county and district councillors did not interfere in the process, which is a matter for parents, not politicians. Labour interfered in extremely dubious ways. I find that most reprehensible—especially when the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) was defying Labour policy by exercising her choice to send her son to a grammar school in a Tory borough 13 miles from her home.
The House may be interested to know that that action has been mimicked by Mr. Hindley, the Labour Member of the European Parliament for Lancashire, South, who represents my area and claims, with some justification, to be extremely left wing. Yet he sends his son to Clitheroe grammar school, in a Tory borough—just—a long way from his home.

Mr. Hawkins: The action of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) in sending her child to a grant-maintained grammar school in a Tory borough was applauded by her mother-in-law, who is a constituent of mine and a Labour activist in my constituency.

Mr. Atkins: That confirms that it is not only the hon. Member for Peckham and Mr. Hindley who choose, and I do not decry it, to take the opportunity to send their children to the school, whatever sort it may be, of their choice. However, Labour is trying to prevent parents in my constituency, and in those of my hon. Friends, from doing the same. That is a classic example of "do as I say, not as I do".
All that adds up to rank hypocrisy, allied to rank incompetence. I was interested by the report yesterday of the Secondary Heads Association, which had examined the Labour party's education policy and described it as "simplistic and bland", short of ideas, unlikely to assist in raising school standards, poorly thought out, uncosted and lacking in detail. It questioned the Labour party's assurances that local council powers to interfere in local school management would not be restored. That sums up Labour policy on education and is similar to the history of Labour control of Lancashire's education. It was Conservatives who fought for the review of the area cost adjustment—and got it; pressed for substantial increases in the Government allocation—and got them; pressed, locally and nationally, for improvements in and standards for regular testing, for choice and for more information for parents—and got them all. We continue to press the case for reducing class sizes.
This debate is important because parents, teachers and governors, who, like Conservative Members, really care about children's education, can learn the facts of the policies of both new and old Labour in Lancashire and realise that it is only the Conservative party that has their real interests at heart.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on this important subject, but I regret that Conservative Members have used it as an opportunity not to speak about education in Lancashire positively but to have a go at Lancashire county council.
The right hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) referred to the problem of surplus places in Burnley. The problem is much more complex than he suggested. Another school may need to be built, or additional places may have to be provided, at one end of Burnley where there is excessive demand, while a school at the other end of the town may have to be closed. Along with John Entwistle, a member of the county council, I have tried to draw attention to the issue in the press. He and I want to involve the people of Burnley in dealing with the secondary school problem. No quick decision should be made; we must ensure that whatever decision is made is in the best interests of secondary school children.
The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Sir M. Lennox-Boyd) said that county councils had the right to determine priorities in their budgets. That is true in theory, but Conservatives tend to forget that local authorities have been capped for some time. In theory, additional money has been made available for education through standard spending assessments, but the Government grant is not rising proportionately. To meet the capping criteria, Lancashire county council must cut its budget by some £45 million, or 5.1 per cent.

Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify something that he said earlier? He is in close contact with Lancashire county council's ruling group. Is the council going to increase its education spending by £26.6 million in the coming year—the amount that the Government have provided?

Mr. Pike: I must emphasise that a standard spending assessment is not money from the Government; it is what the Government say a council can spend. In the current financial year, Lancashire county council is spending 7.5 per cent. above SSA. Yes, the £20-odd million that is being made available is going to schools; but, because the council must cut its overall budget, other education and social services must be cut proportionately more. The council will continue to spend well above its SSA. It already gives priority to schools, and it will pass the money on to them.

Mr. Mans: The hon. Gentleman said that Lancashire county council had problems because it had been capped. Surely it makes no sense for a council that has been capped to decrease the amount of money that is available for schools, as Lancashire did last year. A council with limited resources should make education a priority, rather than spending its money elsewhere.

Mr. Pike: The hon. Gentleman has not been listening. Lancashire is already spending 7.5 per cent. above SSA on education. Anyone who does not recognise that the council already regards education as a priority is not living in the real world.

Mrs. Wise: Does my hon. Friend agree that measures such as the proposed voucher scheme for four-year-olds


are detrimental to areas such as Lancashire, where four-year-olds are already at school? Lancashire can only lose. Is that not an example of the inadequacy and stupidity of the Government's approach?

Mr. Pike: That is a valid point. Until nursery education is provided as of right for all who want it, and is included in the grant formula, counties such as Lancashire will be penalised even more by the move to the voucher system. Tory and Liberal members of Lancashire county council understand the problems better than Conservative Members of Parliament: they have lobbied the Government for more money.
Under the area cost adjustment, every primary school pupil in Essex receives an extra £147 this year. Secondary school pupils aged between 11 and 15 receive an extra £197, and those aged between 16 and 18 an extra £235. The arrangements should be reviewed.

Mr. Nigel Evans: I shall give this question another go, because I know that the hon. Gentleman is more up to speed than his hon. Friends. Does he agree that Lancashire county council could save money if it dropped its campaigns against schools that wish to become grant-maintained—such as Clitheroe Royal grammar school, where the Labour MEP Michael Hindley sends his daughter and where, no doubt, some of the hon. Gentleman's constituents send their children?

Mr. Pike: I totally disagree with what the hon. Gentleman has said. Like anyone else, including me, the council has the right to campaign against grant-maintained status. We have an absolute right to ensure that parents are in possession of all the facts before they vote. By law, every governing body must decide each year whether to ballot on grant-maintained status. Most have not done so, because they know that Lancashire has a first-class education record, and they want to remain part of mainstream education.

Mr. Pope: Conservative Members say that there has been an abuse of taxpayers' money. Will my hon. Friend join me in condemning the disgraceful way in which the Government have spent millions of pounds on the Grant Maintained Schools Trust and the Grant Maintained Schools Foundation? Millions of pounds of taxpayers' money have been spent on bribing schools to opt out.

Mr. Pike: I do condemn that, as I condemn the way in which the Government have spent millions of pounds on advertising their policy on issues such as privatisation over the past few years.

Mr. Hawkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Pike: As the hon. Member will not be a Lancashire Member for long—he is in danger of losing his seat—I will give way to him.

Mr. Hawkins: Will the hon. Gentleman remind his hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope) that the Government have an electoral mandate? We won the election. Lancashire county council, however, is wasting taxpayers' money on improper campaigns.

Mr. Pike: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. Does he believe in local government or not? Education is a local government responsibility. In 1981, Labour won control of Lancashire county council, and—with or without an overall majority—it has been in control ever since. Having fought elections on the basis of certain policies, it has the right to implement them.
Conservatives often misleadingly say that Lancashire wastes money on administration. According to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall), the figure is below the national average. In any event, such matters as student grants—on which Lancashire has an excellent administration record—are part of the education budget, and must be provided for.
The capital allocations have implications for education. The annual capital guideline for 1996–97 is £8.166 million, but the bid was for £37.227 million. The amount provided for improvement and replacement work within that sum is only £265,000. Indeed, in total, the bid is less than that for the committed county council programme for the forthcoming year.
We have many old schools that need to be rebuilt or improved if we are to provide education in the most suitable schools. In many schools, work needs to be done on the smaller programmes. In the forthcoming year, £265,000 is available to spend on 771 schools. What nonsense. Rosehill junior school is desperate to have toilets that are fit for 1996. The county has made that work a top priority. It recognises that the work needs to be done and it carried out some urgent work just over a year ago, but it cannot fund the main programme because it does not have the money.
The simple reality is that the education of our children in Lancashire is handicapped because we have a Tory Government. The quicker they go—just like the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins), who is looking for a seat—and we get a Labour Government, the quicker we can get on with providing a proper education for all our children in Lancashire.

Mr. Keith Mans: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to say a few words about Lancashire and education.
Lancashire county council—particularly the education authority—likes to say no to education. It said no to local management of schools. When it was forced to do it, it delegated to schools the minimum amount that it could get away with. Even now, some years on, when many Labour activists and, indeed, the Labour leadership in London, understand how useful local management of schools has been, the county still delegates less to schools than virtually any other large shire county. That was the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd) made about costs outside schools and about bureaucracy.
Lancashire county council keeps back from schools nearly 15 per cent. of the general schools budget for costs outside schools. If they were among the best rather than the worst in the land, each school in Lancashire would have, on average, another 7 per cent. to spend on teaching, books and other things that help education, and Lancashire county council would have 7 per cent. less to spend on facilities outside schools and central bureaucracy.
Recently, the county showed where its priorities lie. As has been mentioned, the county council recently appointed a new chief education officer. It had an ideal opportunity to look again at the chief education officer's responsibilities, bearing in mind the fact that, since the last one was appointed, a number of schools in Lancashire have become grant-maintained—

Mr. Pope: An avalanche.

Mr. Mans: The hon. Gentleman talks about an avalanche, and that is precisely what will happen to Lancashire county council when Blackburn and Blackpool become unitary authorities, because then the responsibility and the scope of the education authority in Lancashire will be reduced considerably.
One might have thought that this would be an opportunity, perhaps, to dispense with the services of a chief education officer and simply promote one of his deputies, thus saving about £100,000 in administrative costs. But, no, the county council never even looked at his job specification; it simply appointed a successor, who may or may not be a very good man—I do not know—without considering his responsibilities or the scope of his task. That clearly shows Lancashire county council's priorities—not books and teaching, but looking after the fat cats at county hall in Preston.
It does not end there, because the county council said no not only to LMS but to teacher assessments and the testing of pupils. It is bitterly ironic that, having said no to the testing of pupils, the Labour party is trying to use the results of those tests—tests that it did not want in the first place—to criticise the Government. The Labour party should criticise its own education authorities for not teaching children better in the counties that it controls, such as Lancashire. We know why the Labour party did not want the tests—because the results in Lancashire could have been much better, and would have been had county hall practised Conservative policies.

Mrs. Wise: Does the hon. Gentleman understand that it is not the education authority that teaches the children but teachers, and that the burdens that his Government have placed on teachers have led to intolerable stresses, greatly increased sickness rates and the need to take early retirement on health grounds? Does he agree that the priority should be to enable teachers to remain in post so that they can do their job, which they do so admirably in the vast majority of cases?

Mr. Mans: That was an interesting intervention; the hon. Lady should address her remarks to Lancashire county council, which should put teachers before bureaucrats and ensure that teachers get the support that they deserve. Her comment about sickness is also interesting, because, as she knows, the record of absenteeism in Lancashire county council is disgraceful. Lancashire county council has more people absent for one reason or another than the vast majority of local authorities, which says much about its leadership and how it cannot persuade people to work for it.

Mr. Nigel Evans: I should also like to say something about the hon. Lady's intervention. She knows a lot about early retirement, because her daughter was forced to take early retirement as leader of Preston council because

people in Preston and Lancashire are sick and tired of political posturing. They were extremely angry at the way in which Lancashire county council and Andrew Collier wrote to all the schools and scared all the parents, frightening them with an 8 per cent. budget reduction when they did not have any of the facts or statistics. The fact is that the Government were committed to funding education in Lancashire and in the rest of the country and to putting education first, and that is precisely what they did.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. In short debates, long interventions do not assist.

Mr. Mans: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making a point that I would have made a little later in my speech, but, of course, I shall not now do so, to ensure that a few more hon. Members are able to contribute.
Lancashire county council said no not only to testing but to grant-maintained status. That is hypocrisy of the worst order. We are told by the Labour leadership that it believes in stakeholding. What better example of stakeholding is there than to give parents, teachers and governors a stake in their school? That is what Conservatives mean by stakeholding. What the Labour party means, judging by its opposition to grant-maintained schools, is that it wants the bureaucrat miles away to have a stake in that primary, secondary or other school.
That cannot be right, and many Opposition Members understand that by their actions, because, as has been mentioned, Labour activists and Labour leaders throughout the country are voting with their feet and sending their children to Tory-controlled boroughs to grant-maintained schools. Even worse in terms of the doctrinaire policies of some Opposition Members is that some children were sent to selective grammar schools.
It is clear that the Labour's attitude to education has not changed one bit in 20 years. Opposition Members want to climb the ladder of opportunity and pull it up after them to ensure that no one else has the chance to take the opportunities that they had. That is precisely what the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) and the Leader of the Opposition have done. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff) went one stage further, because he made the interesting comment that people on MPs' salaries could afford to send their children to private schools. The hon. Gentleman exercised the option to do precisely that. Perhaps a few more Opposition Members would like to follow his example and provide more opportunities for people who do not have the chance to send their children to schools in their own areas.
The policy in Lancashire is clearly to get rid of selection, to get rid of the good schools, particularly in Lancaster, that have always had selection. That must be wrong. Parents must be given choice and the opportunity to send their children to the schools that they think are best for them. The county council wishes to deny that opportunity to parents and to create conformity and an image of levelling down rather than levelling up. That is what comprehensives are all about; we can see the effect across the county, because the results in comprehensives are not as good as they are in many other schools.
I shall now deal with the way in which Lancashire county council manages its budget. Last year, it cut the schools budget by 5.5 per cent., but, as far as I can ascertain, it did not cut the central administration for


schools at all. It increased the amount of money for social services. That is fine, but the money was not spent on helping the elderly. I do not know where it was spent, but I know that, at the end of January, the social services budget had a surplus of £3 million. The county council should spend that money now on helping people who need domiciliary care but have had it taken away from them, or it should be transferred back to the education budget so that it can be spent on books and teaching rather than sitting in county hall, which is where it is at present.
The record of the county council over the past decade shows that it has consistently put bureaucracy before books and administration before teaching. It is time that it stopped saying no to the education of our county's children and started saying yes.

Mr. Colin Pickthall: I was somewhat puzzled, at the start of the debate, about its central matter, but it soon became obvious when the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Sir M. Lennox-Boyd) described what he said was a method of escape for people in the county—grantmaintained schools. Perhaps it is no wonder that he wants to wrap the debate around that assertion—I understand that there are no grant-maintained schools in his constituency. I take it from that that, despite his vigorous efforts, the people in the area are satisfied with the education service that is being provided by the county.
Since 1989, only eight secondary schools and six primary schools have voted to become grant maintained. As schools have periodically to take a positive decision on the issue, that means that 591 primaries and 98 secondaries have made a positive choice to remain within the Lancashire system.

Mr. Mans: The hon. Gentleman has said that schools have to make a positive choice to go grant-maintained. That is different from the situation 10 or 15 years ago, when grammar and other schools had no choice about whether to go comprehensive.

Mr. Pickthall: I am speaking about the system that appertains today and the system that Conservative Members try to advocate, which is at the centre of what they are about. They are desperate to get schools in their areas to go grant-maintained. However, schools do not want to do that and Conservative Members wrap a debate around the issue, using as many insults and myths as they can find. For example, the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) called the chairman of education in Lancashire, who is the mildest and gentlest of men, a political monster. I have seen letters from the right hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) in which he tells schools in his area that the county will not put the money from the last Budget into schools. The same hon. Member and his colleagues, however, tell us all the time that the county is trying to frighten the electorate.
The hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) said that Lancashire likes to say no to education. That is a preposterous and silly remark. He described many of the legislative measures in education that Lancashire people and Lancashire county council have opposed. However

much we disagree with legislation, the key question is whether, when it has been passed, we in Lancashire put it into practice in the best possible manner. The answer to that is yes, as the record clearly shows. The hon. Member for Wyre said that Lancashire wants to get rid of good schools. That is absolute nonsense. What does it mean? Does it mean that they should be closed and thrown into the sea? That is plainly absurd.
The debate hovers around a self-seeking agenda that has been set by Conservative Members who pretend that they are concerned about the generality of education in Lancashire. They elide education funding and schools and use the two interchangeably. I remind them that education in Lancashire covers a heck of a lot more than schools, although schools form the central and most important part of it.

Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman says that Conservative Members are self-seeking. In January, a discussion paper, not a decision, was issued by county hall for consideration by county councillors. It dealt with cuts in primary and secondary school funding of £25 million. I appreciate that we must draw a distinction between specific cuts and cuts in education generally. The figure was later changed to cuts of only £6.7 million. How does the hon. Gentleman explain those figures against the background of the Government increasing funding by £26.6 million?

Mr. Pickthall: They are explained against the foreground of the Government's Budget. The county council estimated what it would get from the Budget and it made its expectations public. Although I would quarrel with the nature of the extra money that was targeted at schools in the Budget, Lancashire decided to put that money into schools, and 5.1 per cent. extra will go to schools to account for the extra money. That extra money did not take account of the fact that, next year, a large number of extra pupils will come on stream in Lancashire or that a large extra amount will be spent on special educational needs next year. It did not take account either of next year's pay rise for teachers, which is likely to be higher than the rate of inflation. All those matters have to be taken into account when considering the money that Conservative Members perceive as extra, as a bonus. It is nothing of the kind.
As I have said, Lancashire is putting 5.1 per cent. extra into the schools budget—not into education in general. To be able to do that, it has to make cuts of 6.4 per cent. in spending on the rest of its services. They include not just highways and social services but the rest of the education service, the youth service and discretionary awards. They will have to be cut to pay for the extra spending on schools. That is an agonising decision for the county, and it has had to make such decisions for 10 or 12 years.
I do not have much time left, but I want to mention one or two other matters. Conservative Members consistently argue that Lancashire spends a vast amount on its central administration, but that is just not true. They say it over and over again, as if doing so might make it true. I repeat that Lancashire spends 1.6 per cent. of its education budget on central administration. Not only is that a lower proportion than all other local authorities in the country bar nine: it is lower than most private enterprise firms spend on central administration. Lancashire is an extremely efficient outfit.
My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) mentioned the area cost adjustment and the difference that it makes. The adjustment means that a secondary pupil in Essex—a similar county, according to the Shaw criteria—is deemed to be worth £235 a year more than a pupil in Lancashire. All the Lancashire Tory Members in the Chamber today have voted year after year to maintain an area cost adjustment and a funding system for nursery education that disadvantage Lancashire, and they have the cheek to come here today to argue that the county council is doing a bad job. There is an awful lot more that could be said, but my time has run out. I find the origin of the debate offensive and its execution futile and silly.

Mr. Greg Pope: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Sir M. Lennox-Boyd) on his good fortune in securing this important, if brief, debate on education in Lancashire. I declare an interest—I am the parent of three children, all of whom are receiving state comprehensive education of high quality in Lancashire schools.
The hon. Member sought to paint a picture of failing education in the county, but that view is obviously not shared by teachers, governors or parents in his constituency, where not one school has chosen to opt out. Indeed, at Morecambe high school—the one school where a ballot has taken place—parents voted against opting out.
On the subject of opting out, the House will be aware that the Funding Agency for Schools for England takes over the functions of the local education authority when 75 per cent. of pupils in any sector attend grant-maintained schools. At the current rate of opting out in Lancashire primary schools, that will happen in 2704. That is hardly a real date—it is more of a captain's log star date. It will happen only when we are run by planet Portillo.
The House has seen this morning a grotesque collection of selected half-truths and truths from Tory Members who have sought to distort the real picture of what is happening to education in Lancashire. The truth is that Lancashire has much to be proud of in its education service, despite the damaging funding regime imposed by the Government and supported by Tory Members.
As my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) said, Lancashire has suffered particularly because of the area cost adjustment. If we look at authorities of a similar size, we discover that Hampshire, for example, receives £137 per secondary-aged pupil more than Lancashire, that Kent receives £162 and that Essex receives a staggering £197.

Mr. Atkins: May I ask the hon. Gentleman as a Front-Bench spokesman, rather than as a Lancashire Member, whether he would tell his colleagues in Labour-held seats and Labour-controlled councils in the south that they must do without the money that the area cost adjustment gives them in order to benefit Lancashire? I would be delighted, as would my constituents, if that were the case.

Mr. Pope: The Government—supported by the right hon. Gentleman—have cut funding year after year, and Opposition Members will take no lectures from them on education funding. Despite the effects of the area cost

adjustment, Lancashire is spending 7.5 per cent. more than its education SSA. In the financial year 1996–97, Lancashire is likely to spend 5.1 per cent. more on its schools budget, despite having to bear cuts of £6.4 million in other areas of the education service.
Year-on-year Government cuts in section 11 funding have led to a loss of income of £1.65 million to Lancashire county council, yet the Minister of State, Home Office said that the Home Office used Lancashire's work with under-achieving ethnic minority pupils as a model of good practice. We should consider the voluntary-aided sector, as Lancashire has more aided schools than any other LEA in the country. The Roman Catholic Bishop of Lancaster said that his diocese had been
extremely well served by the Lancashire Education Authority.
Across the range, Lancashire pupils are doing well. Lancashire's 1995 GCSE results compare favourably with those in other LEAs in the same Shaw group. Between 1988 and 1993, the number of pupils getting five or more A to C grades increased by 37 per cent. nationally. In Lancashire, the increase was 51 per cent. A-level performance in Lancashire schools has also been good for a number of years. In 1993, the number of students in Lancashire schools entered for two or more A-levels placed Lancashire fourth in the entire country. I would be the first to accept that that is based on a small sample, because most Lancashire pupils receive their post-16 education in further education colleges.
While mentioning FE colleges, perhaps I might say in passing what a disgrace it is that, at colleges such as Accrington and Rossendale in my constituency, lecturers are being made redundant and class sizes forced up as a direct consequence of the actions of the Government and the Further Education Funding Council.
Lancashire has a good record on special educational needs and is committed to a policy of integrating children with special needs into mainstream schools. There are now more pupils with statements in mainstream schools than there are in special schools in the county. For the past two years, more than 70 per cent. of the statements that have been issued were for children in mainstream schools.
Lancashire is a nationally outstanding authority in terms of the range of provision available for children with special needs. The county provides more than 50 special schools, special facilities in mainstream schools for hearing impairment and language difficulties and specialist teams of teachers for children with complex learning, reading and language, and behavioural difficulties. Perhaps best of all, a new centre for pupils with autism was opened this year. In addition, Lancashire provides specialist inspectors, advisers and psychologists.
In early-years education, Lancashire again leads the way, spending well above the under-fives element of its SSA and providing every Lancashire child with a school place at the start of the school year after their fourth birthday. That means that many Lancashire children—such as my four-year-old son—receive a school place a full year before the law requires. In addition, there are part-time nursery places for about half of all three-year-olds in the county.
Lancashire has been keen to expand the number of nursery places it can offer, but has been prevented from doing so by the low level of capital allocation from the


Government. Indeed, the present Secretary of State—like previous Secretaries of State—has turned down specific requests from the county council for extra nursery classes for aided schools in rural areas. Lancashire has a proven track record of being a high-quality, high-level provider—precisely the kind of authority that will be damaged by the Government's half-baked plans for nursery vouchers.
We have heard much from Tory Members this morning about the perceived failings of the Lancashire education service, so let me put this point directly to the Minister. In the last year for which comparable figures are available, Lancashire students received more new mandatory awards than did those in any other LEA in the country. Furthermore, the total number of mandatory awards was the highest in the country in both 1993–94 and in 1994–95. If Lancashire is the failure that Conservative Members have tried to suggest, why does it have the highest number of pupils of any LEA going on to higher education? Is that not a clear indicator of the success of Lancashire schools and colleges?
Efficiency has been mentioned by several hon. Members. The facts are these: on surplus places, Lancashire has met in full and exceeded the targets set by the Secretary of State; on central administration, Lancashire spends only 1.6 per cent. of its education budget compared with a counties' average of 2.1 per cent; on efficiency in administering student awards, the district auditor found, in a national review, that Lancashire had the second highest number administered per employee and the second lowest staff costs per award processed. If Lancashire is as inefficient as the Conservative party claims, why is it that, since 1989, only eight secondary schools and six primary schools have voted to become grant maintained, while over the same period 591 primary schools and 98 secondary schools have chosen to remain in partnership with the local education authority?
The fact is that the gap between the parties on education, both in Lancashire and throughout the country, could not be clearer. The Tories want a divisive, two-tier education system. Their hidden agenda is a return to selection—a system that wrote off three quarters of our children as academic failures at the age of 11, often with disastrous consequences for the children themselves and for the long-term interests of our economy and society.
Labour in Lancashire, like Labour in the House, is about driving up standards for all our pupils, not just the privileged few. We look forward to the day—in the near future—when Lancashire children will get the support they deserve and need and which they can get only from a Labour Government.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Robin Squire): I congratulate the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope) on his first speech from the Opposition Front Bench. He will be reassured to know that I agree with little of what he said.
I want to respond to the point about capital spend immediately, in case I am unable to do so later in the short time available to me. In the last three years alone, the Government have made available some £2 billion for

county and voluntary-controlled schools capital spend, and the increase for the forthcoming year will be some 7 per cent. Conservative Members recognise that, against the tight financial position that we are still in, that is an excellent settlement that will allow opportunities for all local education authorities to carry out the necessary maintenance and improvements in their schools.

Mr. Hawkins: Is my hon. Friend aware that I received a letter this week from the secretary of the Blackpool association of the National Union of Teachers? I shall ignore the bad spelling and typographical errors. It says that I will be pleased to hear that school budgets are to increase by 5.1 per cent. and, referring to the average for English county councils, that that makes Lancashire's 5.5 per cent. "seem a real bonus".

Mr. Squire: I intended to deal with revenue budgets in a moment. My hon. Friend has provided us with a useful hors d'oeuvre.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Sir M. Lennox-Boyd) on initiating this debate. He has done a service to his constituents and to everyone living in Lancashire by drawing the attention of the House to his concerns about education in the county. He was eloquently backed by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins), by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) and, by their presence and occasional interjections, by my hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson), for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) and for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), has also indicated his support.
If I dare say so, we witnessed a St. Valentine's day massacre of the Opposition.

Mr. Elletson: Has my hon. Friend noticed several prominent absences during the debate, in particular that of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw)? Obviously he is absent because he is embarrassed by the record of Lancashire county council. Other prominent absences include Liberal Democrat Members, who consistently claim that they say yes to education, but not one of them has bothered to turn up today. Does not that say a great deal about the Liberal Democrats' real attitude to education in Lancashire?

Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. By their refusal to join in our discussions on Lancashire, Liberal Democrat Members show the priority that they give to that county.
All my hon. Friends emphasised the importance of raising standards and of making the best use of the considerable resources that the Government have made, and are making, available to schools in Lancashire, as elsewhere, to support that end. Government policy is pushing forward all the time across a wide front, with policies designed to raise achievement and to encourage choice and diversity. I shall touch on just some of those.
To begin with, and as the hon. Member for Hyndburn knows, we are currently discussing in Committee the Nursery and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill, which will tackle excellence and opportunity of choice for the


pre-fives in a way that will lead to a big expansion in provision and obviously contribute to quality of education for those children, especially later in their school lives.
My hon. Friends sought, understandably, a guarantee that the money made available for education in Lancashire would find its way into schools. I know that all my hon. Friends accept that, in practice, it is for Lancashire county council to set its own budget and to decide its priorities within and between services. The council has the last word on how much is spent on education and how much is spent on other services.
Hon. Members should be aware that I have received many letters saying that, this year, Lancashire has been forced to cut school budgets by more than 5 per cent. That is simply not true. The fact is that Lancashire has been able to increase its budget for all services by some £4 million and can spend £888 million on all services. That is a very large sum and it is for the county council to decide how much of it should be given to schools.
I hope that there will not be a repeat performance of so-called cuts—which are not actual cuts, but are based on a wish list drawn up by a local authority, including full allowance for all movement in cash and volume changes. It is then suggested that cuts on that final figure represent a reduction in support. I hope that that will not be repeated in the current year. As my hon. Friends made crystal clear, the Lancashire LEA had an increase in its spending assessment of more than £26 million, or 5.5 per cent. I have to tell the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) that that is real money. He implied that it was fictional money, but he should have a word with my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is very clear that it is real money.
I repeat what my right hon. and hon. Friends have said on other occasions. We are unclear from today's debate whether Lancashire is committed to feeding all the increase into schools, so it must be made crystal clear to all parents and teachers in the authority that if that does not happen, it is the responsibility of the county council and no one else.
The hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) referred to concern about class sizes in Lancashire schools. Despite the horror stories that occasionally appear, the latest available data show that average class sizes in Lancashire

are 28 for primary schools and 22 for secondary schools. If there are class sizes of 35 plus, it is for the county council in the first place, and those managing school budgets in the second, to explain to parents why they are so far above Lancashire's average.
My hon. Friends made several references to the quality of grant-maintained schools. I join them in urging parents in Lancashire to think carefully about the benefits that GM status can bring. As we have heard this morning, Lancashire has a tiny number of GM schools—13, representing only 1 per cent. of its primaries and 8 per cent. of its secondaries. Nationally, one in five secondary pupils is now in a GM school.
A glance at the school performance tables or Ofsted's list of recently published oscars shows just how well GM schools are performing—they comprise 40 per cent. of outstanding secondary schools: 29 per cent. of improving schools, against a national average of 18 per cent; and 6 per cent. of excellent primaries, against only 1 per cent. nationally. Going GM sets schools free to make their own choices and develop their own characters. We see evidence all around us of just how much that can do for a school. It releases the energies and talents of staff, and it is the key to raising the attainment of their pupils.
In Lancashire, only 5 per cent. of schools have even held a ballot on going GM, which is half the rate in the country as a whole. Governors are not offering parents the chance to choose; but parents need not wait for governors. They can ask for a ballot themselves, and I urge them to do so.
In relation to the much-reported activities of Labour councillors and Labour Members of Parliament in Lancashire and elsewhere who have been campaigning ferociously against schools being given the freedom to run themselves, while their colleagues are sending their children to GM schools, I can only say that it is not only a desperate and disgraceful situation—it is hypocritical in the extreme. One does not drive up standards in our poorest schools by abolishing some of our best schools. The Labour party needs to learn that lesson.
This debate has been wide ranging and interesting, and I am grateful to my hon. Friends for raising so many important issues. They have clearly ensured that the Lancashire LEA is charged with the responsibility.

Air Crash (Coventry)

11 am

Mr. Jim Cunningham: I should like to express my thanks to Madam Speaker, on behalf of the residents not only of Coventry but of Warwickshire, for this debate. I thank the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House for their support in arranging the debate. I also thank my colleagues from Warwickshire and Coventry and from Bedworth, and my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner).
I particularly thank the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) as over the past couple of years, even before the crash, he and I have tried to introduce legislation in the form of regulations to deal with small airports. I am appreciate all my colleagues' assistance. So far as possible, we have sought to take a bipartisan approach to the air crash as we see no need for it to become a party political issue, although it is certainly a political issue with a small "p".
The crash caused tremendous grief to the residents of the Willenhall area and, indeed, to the citizens of Coventry and of Warwickshire. It was a traumatic experience for them. Anyone who visited the scene of the crash on that day, as I did, could not help but be astounded—it was a miracle—that the aircraft did not land on the houses. I understand from the report that the aircraft clipped the roof of one house and came down about 100 yards away. Had it come down on the houses, it would have been a great catastrophe and no doubt the Government would have rushed legislation through the House to deal with it.
I see the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris), on the Government Front Bench. As he knows, there have been a number of meetings. However, my colleagues and I would like to know when the Government will find the time to introduce regulations, based on their own proposals, so that we can debate and amend them and pass them through the House. It is vital that he answers that question today. My colleagues and I cannot keep on going back to residents—I have been to three public meetings—and telling them that it is a matter of finding parliamentary time. The Minister must come clean and tell us whether it is really just a question of parliamentary time or whether the Government do not have the will to regulate on the basis of their own report.
We must discuss the Coventry air crash of December 1994 and the report into that tragedy that was published on 10 January this year. In this debate, I wish to accomplish three main aims. First, as the title of this debate suggests, I intend briefly to discuss the events of 21 December 1994—the crash that left five people dead. That was, in itself, a tragedy. Secondly, I shall highlight the air accident investigation branch's report into the crash, and the implications of that report for future action. Finally, I shall raise the important issue of airport safety—an issue that I have been raising for two years, and the reason for this Adjournment debate—and discuss the impact of the crash and the subsequent report. It would be a mistake not to highlight the issue of air safety.
The crash in Willenhall, Coventry occurred at 9.52 am on 21 December 1994 and left three crew members and two handlers dead and a community in shock. The aircraft involved was a Boeing 737, owned and operated by Air

Algerie and leased by Phoenix Aviation to conduct a series of live animal export flights from the United Kingdom to airports in France and the Netherlands. I should add that, as a result of those flights, a young lady from my constituency, Jill Phipps, was killed when standing up for what she believed was right. We should not forget her; she was another casualty.
I shall discuss the reasons for the crash later in my speech when I discuss the report, but it is important to stress that the disaster could easily have been a catastrophe. I do not wish to diminish the seriousness of the events that occurred, but if the aircraft had been just a few feet lower it would have landed on a densely populated housing estate in Willenhall, causing severe loss of life. Nevertheless, the crash was a dramatic episode in my constituency, which had a profound effect on residents not only in Willenhall but also in Baginton and throughout Coventry.
Anyone who visited the crash scene that day or shortly afterwards would have been moved by the residents' reaction and awestricken by the response of the emergency services, whose reaction and work throughout the disaster deserves the highest commendation: neither I nor the residents could find fault with their efforts, and I am sure that all hon. Members present in the Chamber will concur with that sentiment.
The huge emotional impact made by the crash on the residents of Willenhall has not subsided with time. I recently attended a residents' meeting to debate the crash and the report with residents and local councillors. Throughout that well attended meeting, a depth of feeling was demonstrated which made it obvious to me that the crash has been very much in the minds of the people of Willenhall.
The implications of the report were debated at the meeting. The report was conducted by the AAIB in accordance with the 1989 civil aviation regulations, submitted to the Secretary of State for Transport on 7 December 1995, and made public on 10 January 1996. It reached a number of conclusions and made several important recommendations, ranging from the reasons for the crash to suggestions for future action. It is constructive to highlight the key recommendation, as that will contribute to the debate.
The report's first conclusion was that the flight crew allowed the plane to descend lower than is recommended in the guidelines on approach to Coventry airport. Furthermore, the members of the crew were over-tired, because they had been on duty for too many hours. There was a lack of communication between the pilots, and their comprehension of English was limited. To compound the problem, some of the aircraft's navigational equipment was not compatible with devices in the control tower, and the crew would have seen an electric pylon too late to avoid it.
The plane's commander had received an inadequate weather warning and tried to land in foggy conditions. Air traffic control in Coventry had failed to give details of weather conditions and advice on landing visibility. Finally, the radar systems at Coventry airport could not determine the actual height of the plane. Ground staff could not have been aware that the aircraft had gone lower than recommended by guidelines and could not warn the crew and thus prevent the accident. That was coupled with the fact that a newly qualified weather watcher was on


duty in the air traffic services unit at the airport without adequate supervision. The lack of accurate information contributed to the crash.
Those are clearly important conclusions, and I urge the Minister to take note of them and to take some action. The people of Willenhall have been profoundly affected by the crash, and it is vital that the Minister should implement the recommendations if he is to restore public confidence. It is essential that the citizens of Coventry are assured, now that the report has been published, that it will be acted upon. To disregard it would not only limit future improvements in airport safety but deal a substantial blow to the confidence of the people who live near the airport at which the tragedy occurred. I acknowledge that, on publication of the report, the Minister announced in a press release that the issuing of permits to foreign aircraft was to be tightened. I await implementation of that announcement, but I must make it clear that that in itself does not go far enough.
Finally, I stress the need for the regulation of airport safety. Quite apart from the 1994 crash, this has been a theme that I and my colleagues have pursued consistently for the past two years, during which I have tabled a number of questions about problems at Coventry airport and had a number of meetings with various Ministers. I hope to meet the Minister for Aviation and Shipping with my colleagues next month when we have sorted out a date.
In March 1995, I travelled to Brussels to meet the European Transport Commissioner, Neil Kinnock, who said that regulation of small airports was needed and that he would be very interested in the results of the report. I have sent him a copy and await his comments.
In July last year, the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth and I led a delegation of Coventry Members of Parliament to meet the Minister for Aviation and Shipping to raise the concerns of residents of the city of Coventry. One important issue raised at that meeting was the Government's own 1993 proposals for the regulation of small airports. The Minister assured us that he was very much in favour of his own proposals, which I shall outline, but said that he was not responsible for their introduction. Like other Ministers, he claimed that there was insufficient parliamentary time available to discuss them. Now that the report on the crash, which contains clear recommendations, has been published, there can be little excuse for not making the time to discuss such an important issue.
The proposals are that the Department should commission and consult on guidance to create a national network to assist the preparation of noise amelioration schemes; that the Department should encourage aerodromes to review existing noise amelioration measures and their enforcement and arrangements for local accountability; and that the Department should open discussions with the British Airports Authority and local consultative committees about making Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports more responsible and locally accountable for their noise control measures. Why cannot we do the same for airports such as that at Bagington just outside Coventry?
Other sections of the proposals include new enabling powers for aerodromes to establish and enforce noise control arrangements, including ground noise. Designated aerodromes should prepare noise amelioration schemes,

consult locally and agree with the lead local authority what is to be established. Where disputes arise, the Secretary of State would have the power to settle them.
Those are important proposals and, although far from exhaustive, could make a real difference to people living near small airports such as that at Coventry. I urge the Government to find time to debate them and, if the House so wishes, to implement them.
I hope that I have shown that the crash and the report resulting from the tragedy should prompt the Government to implement not only the report's recommendations but the proposals for the regulation of small airports produced by the Government themselves in 1993.

Sir Dudley Smith: The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham) should be congratulated on raising such an important matter. As he said, many of us—notably, he, my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), in whose constituency the airport is situated, and I—have become increasingly concerned, but have not had a very satisfactory response from the authorities.
The worrying aspect of the situation that the hon. Gentleman described is illustrated by the deficiencies of the doomed aircraft and its control. As I understand it, some essential safety elements were lacking.
I have known Coventry airport since I have represented Warwick and Leamington. Indeed, it was in my constituency until the boundary commissioners decreed some years ago that it should be located in the patch represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth. To use a sporting analogy, the airport resembles a third division or non league football ground suddenly taken over by Manchester United and run with all the corresponding panoply.
Coventry airport is small, but it is nevertheless among the top three or four in terms of the movement of freight. That may seem unbelievable, but freight movement is constant, and it is likely to increase. The Coventry Evening Telegraph of 16 January said:
Freight business that would increase the number of bigger planes using Coventry Airport is being sought in an attempt to turn losses into profit.
AM & I, the private firm now running the city council-owned airport want to maximise the volume of cargo dealt with in each flight at Bagington.
It would mean fewer small aircraft and an increase in large jets, including Airbuses and Boeing 737 and 727 aircraft. There is unlikely to be any significant overall increase in the number of planes landing and taking off.
I beg to doubt whether all that is true and, in any event, the question of noise must also be considered.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East will agree that the salient point is that the airport was not built for such operations. Clearly, safety is critical at any airport. I live near Coventry airport, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth, and I see the planes flying in fairly low. I remember that at the time of the accident, which the hon. Gentleman described so graphically, people were already complaining about the noise and saying that there was an accident waiting to happen. When it did happen, it caused


pandemonium in Warwick district council offices—I was there at a meeting. People there said that they had always felt that something of the kind could occur.
The noise generated, especially at night, causes distress and irritation to my constituents in the Leamington Spa area and the surrounding villages. In terms of air travel, a distance of 30 or 40 miles is nothing and is accomplished in a few minutes, but the effects are widespread on the ground. Last year we had a very good summer and noise carried even further than usual. People were unable to have their windows open during the hottest period. I, too, noticed the effects, but this is not a special plea. I do not live on one of the main arrival or departure paths, but I see and hear the planes and I am all too well aware of the extent to which my constituents are troubled by it.
The onus lies firmly on the council. I approach the matter in a non-political way, and my approach would be the same even if the council were not of a different political complexion from my own. The council says that it needs to consider the generation of jobs and income for the people of Coventry. That is a laudable aim, but we also have to consider the environmental needs and safety of individuals who live in the area. In the three constituencies alone that I have mentioned—those of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East, my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth and myself—so many people are affected by noise from the airport that environmental and safety considerations overpower arguments about jobs and expansion.
I, too, have been part of deputations to the Minister for Aviation and Shipping, but we got short change from him. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris), is a very fair-minded man and may perhaps take a rather different approach. The problem will not go away. I appreciate the difficulties as international airports are governed differently, but we want new regulations for small airports in this country. We also want higher standards on aircraft noise generated from them.
I have the greatest pleasure in fully supporting the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East.

Mr. Bill Older: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham) on being fortunate in securing the debate. Although my constituency might seem a fair way from Coventry airport, my constituents in Binley Woods are very much affected by the activity at Baginton airport. I keep referring to Baginton airport because, to many people who have lived in the area for many years, that is how it is known.
Baginton, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), used to be a small village—indeed, it still is. Coventry airport was a small airport at Baginton village. Activity there has since grown out of all proportion. I receive many letters from residents of Binley Woods who complain bitterly that their sleep is broken in the middle of the night by loud aircraft landing at Baginton airport. If it happened on a regular basis, one could adjust one's sleeping pattern and forget about it, but it does not. The noise is spasmodic and occurs five and sometimes six nights a week.
It is time that the Minister considered the conclusions announced in 1993 on how airports such as Baginton can be controlled properly. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East has been extremely diligent, as have all Members who represent Warwickshire and Coventry, in meeting the Minister, but, as my hon. Friend said, we can only do that for so long. Firm action needs to be taken to regulate the airport.
There is a lack of transparency in the complaints procedure and a lack of action as a result of them. Some of my constituents who live in Binley Woods regularly telephone the airport to complain, citing exact times of the aircraft noise, yet they are—virtually—fobbed off. They are told, "It is nothing to do with us. It is to do with the Civil Aviation Authority". Yet when they telephone the CAA, it says that the problem is nothing to do with it either. There is a lack of accountability.
I do not want to speak about the crash because my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East portrayed it well. I agree with the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) that the crash was waiting to happen. I must impress on the Minister that if that airport is not specifically regulated, further crashes could happen. Indeed, although noise is a problem, the big fear in people's minds is that further crashes—heaven forbid—are waiting to happen. Urgent action should be taken to regulate the airport correctly to ensure as far as possible that another crash will not happen. Otherwise, the circumstances will remain exactly the same as those before the crash in 1994. There is also a lack of noise regulation. Aircraft noise was specifically removed from the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and that should be redressed.
I want to extend the analogy drawn by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington between non-league and first division sides. Nuneaton happens to have a fairly good non-league side; Nuneaton Borough is excellent. He mentioned Manchester United—I have no arguments against them—who are excellent and first class. The problem is that the aircraft that use Baginton airport are not excellent and first class. Older, noisier aircraft tend to use regional, very small airports such as Baginton, which increases the problem. To most people, regional airports are airports such as Birmingham. The amount of freight traffic landing at the small village airport in Baginton gives it a regional status, so there must be some enactment and enforcement of procedures to ensure that the airport is properly regulated.
The control of aircraft noise has been discussed since 1991, when the consultation paper on the subject was issued. Conclusions to it were announced in March 1993. My constituents who live in Binley Woods and I want to know why, after all that time, no regulations have been put in place to enable people who are affected by airports to voice their opinions and concerns, and why they have not been promised the safety that they surely deserve.

Mr. James Pawsey: I congratulate the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham) on his success in arranging the debate, the way in which he delivered his speech and the amount of homework that he had clearly done. His speech was comprehensive and included enormous detail. It is a fairly short debate and therefore, of necessity, my speech will be fairly brief.
Coventry airport, as has been said, is in my constituency. It originated before the second world war. Since the airport was built, many houses in its general vicinity have been constructed—some very much closer to the airport than others. For example, Oak Close in Baginton was built immediately adjacent to the perimeter fence. One cannot get any closer to the airport. I invite the House to consider and reflect on the implications of that proximity.
Planning permission was given and building took place because Coventry airport at that time was a small airport, catering for small, light aircraft, which predominantly used the airfield during daylight hours and were not especially noisy or offensive. Some hon. Members might argue that houses in Willenhall in the constituency of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East, in Binley Woods in the constituency of the hon. Member for Nuneaton, and in Baginton in my constituency should not have been built, and perhaps they are right. The debate on the Coventry air crash should, however, starts from where we are today and not from where we would like to be.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) that much responsibility for the increased use of the airport must lie with Coventry city council, which has long been directly responsible for the airport and its management. It has deliberately sought more business and more flights to offset the substantial losses of the airport. That position has continued under new management.
On 25 January 1995, Paul Dale, the political editor of the Coventry Evening Telegraph, one of our excellent local newspapers, said:
The city council's aim has been to turn the airport from a £1 million loss-making white elephant into a profitable outfit. The fact that Baginton is now the sixth busiest freight airport in the country is viewed with some pride at the council house.
I must say that distance lends enchantment. I well understand that that may be good news for Coventry council and Coventry ratepayers, but it is bad news for my constituents and those of the hon. Member for Nuneaton and my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington. The noise and nuisance of those flights are considerable.
I come now to a point rightly touched on earlier by hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East. He drew attention to the fact that more flights naturally increase the risk of accident, particularly in a congested and built-up urban area. Here, for the benefit of hon. Members, I should say that the airfield is on the eastern periphery of Coventry, surrounded by a number of villages. It is now badly sited, which, unfortunately, is placing many people at risk.
During the past few years, the character of Coventry airport has changed substantially—the very point made by the Coventry Evening Telegraph in the passage that I have just quoted. It is now predominantly a freight airfield. The aircraft which crashed on 21 December 1994 in the constituency of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East at, as he said, a cost of some life, was a Boeing 737 owned by Air Algerie. It was due to land at the airport, collect freight—in this case, calves—and fly out. It would appear that the equipment in the aircraft was not entirely compatible with ground equipment at Coventry airport, a contributory factor to the accident.
The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East, in his admirable speech, touched on the report that was produced by the air accident investigation branch on 10

January. He went into it in some detail, so I shall not go over the ground that he covered. However, the whole issue is a genuinely important matter and a source of real worry to my constituents living in the villages of Baginton and Stoneleigh which are close to the airfield. They do not want any aircraft from any airline flying with equipment which is not entirely compatible with the equipment that is used at Coventry airfield, and I entirely agree with them.
Already my constituents and those of other hon. Members have much to complain about. The noise and nuisance from aircraft landing and taking off is intrusive. Better and stronger controls are required to safeguard the environment of those living and working close to airports. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington, I am not opposed to jobs or progress, but those laudable objectives have to be set against the danger and nuisance caused by night flights. They must be set against the disturbed nights and general inconvenience that they cause to the many thousands of people living near to the airfield who cannot escape the substantial noise intrusion caused by aircraft landing and taking off.
I have visited the airport on several occasions, one of which was fairly late in the evening with members of Baginton parish council. I could not only hear the noise of the aircraft and the substantial ground noise that is created, but smell and almost taste the fumes of the kerosene used by the aircraft. It was singularly unpleasant. There are few bonuses for anyone living close to an airport.
The crash has far-reaching implications, not simply for Coventry airport. Clearly, we must prevent anything similar from happening in the future. It may be helpful for the House to know that, on Wednesday 12 July 1995, I, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington and the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East, the author of the debate, met the Minister for Aviation and Shipping who is in another place. At that meeting, all three of us stressed two separate issues. The first and most important was aviation safety. No one wants a repeat of that terrible December day in 1994. The second was the noise and nuisance caused to so many people by the operation of the airport itself.
I have had meetings with Warwick district council, in whose area the airport is situated, and I have met Baginton parish council and, like other hon. Members, many residents who all say that the nuisance is growing and at a substantial rate. They all naturally ask what action might be taken to mitigate the problems that are being caused by Coventry airport.
A solution may be contained in the Department of Transport document entitled "Review of aircraft noise legislation—announcement of conclusions". Again, that was a point made by the hon. Member for Nuneaton. The main points of that document are to commission and to consult on guidance designed to produce a national framework for noise amelioration schemes. The Department should also undertake to encourage airfields to review any noise amelioration measures and their enforcement, and to make much greater arrangements for local accountability. Hon. Members whose constituencies surround the airport clearly understand the need for real local accountability to come back into the equation—a point that is not sufficiently addressed in the present arrangements.
The same document says that there should be a new enabling power for aerodromes to establish and enforce noise control arrangements, including those for ground noise—in itself an important point. Additionally, the Secretary of State should have a call-in power so that he can approve schemes. A number of other measures are suggested in that admirable document which would do a great deal to enhance and improve the quality of life of those who live not just around Coventry airport but around other airports up and down the land.
However, I must tell my hon. Friend the Minister, who is listening carefully to the debate, that such measures are no use in a simple report. They should be enshrined in legislation—the very point made so well by the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East. I believe that I have the support of all hon. Members present when I say that we want the Department of Transport speedily to enact a Bill giving greater powers to local authorities and the Secretary of State which will ensure a greater measure of control over local airfields such as Coventry.

Mr. Robert Ainsworth: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham) for securing this debate and for the tireless way in which he has doggedly pursued this issue since the day of the air crash at Coventry. Since that tragic day in Coventry, he has applied pressure in every circumstance that one can imagine: he has met the local authority, Ministers and local residents. I hope that he will continue those efforts until we are rewarded with better regulation in Coventry.
I share an office with my hon. Friend in Coventry, and we were there on the morning of the air crash. People had to be in Coventry—which is a reasonable-sized city—to understand the impact of what happened that morning. My hon. Friend and I were working in the office and we heard sirens outside. We did not know what had gone on—whether there had been a terrorist bomb, whether a gas main had leaked or whether the canal had burst its banks. It was then announced on the radio that there had been an air crash. My hon. Friend immediately went to the crash site. The people of Coventry were in a state of shock, and heaven knows how the people of Willenhall were feeling.
Many people had said that there was an accident waiting to happen at Coventry. The plane that crashed was involved in the export of live animals to the continent, following the ferry companies' ban on that trade and the inability of people to export live animals through the ports. We knew that cowboys would be attracted to that trade—they were cashing in on a short-term profit opportunity to transport live animals out of the country by air.
There is no long-term future in such an operation—everyone knows that, so everyone knows what sort of an operation would fill the gap. Local people were concerned about the safety regulations, the aircraft that were being used and the nature of the company that was running the operation out of Coventry airport. The local authority was in a dilemma because the operator was threatening it with legal action if it did anything to prevent his trade.
Lord Goschen has told my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East that the problem is parliamentary time. Does any hon. Member believe that there is a

problem with parliamentary time? We have heard the Queen's Speech and we know its content—or lack of content. Parliamentary time is not at a premium this year, nor was it last year. It is a smokescreen for anyone to suggest to hon. Members who represent Coventry and Warwickshire that the problem is parliamentary time.
I do not want to bring party politics into this issue, but I ask the Minister whether the problem is not tied up with the paranoia in sections of the Government about regulation of any part of the economy and with improving or increasing the powers and abilities of local authorities to respond to circumstances such as this. If the only excuse that we are being given is lack of parliamentary time, I suspect that there must be another reason why we are not acting to regulate small and medium-sized airports properly. Perhaps we will get a response from the Minister on that issue.
The local authority was in a dilemma. Phoenix Aviation, the operator of this enterprise, was threatening court action if the local authority did anything to restrain its trade. There were demonstrations outside the airport and this operation left an awful lot to be desired in relation to health and safety at work and safety in the air. The company threatened to take the local authority to court if it took action.
Six people died because of Phoenix Aviation's activities in Coventry, including one demonstrator who fell under a lorry at the gates of Coventry airport and five people in the air crash. I have visited the site—I did not go with my hon. Friend on the morning of the crash; it was his constituency, and it was right that he should be involved at that time—and there would have been mass slaughter in Willenhall if that plane had been on a slightly different path. The plane clipped a pylon, turned upside down in the air, clipped the side of a house and then, mercifully, crashed into woodland at the side of the housing estate.
The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) asked whether those houses should have been built—they were built in the mid-1950s and the nature of the airport has changed over that time. When the housing estate was built at Willenhall the airport was a Sunday flying school.

Mr. Pawsey: In the days when much of this development took place, the airfield catered for small, light aircraft. A fundamental change in the role of the airport has occurred over recent years, and that is causing so much worry to those of us who have constituencies around it.

Mr. Ainsworth: I shall refer briefly to the change in the nature of the airport, the problems that have arisen as a result of that and the council's policies towards it. The airport has been a controversial issue within the local authority for a number of years—some people have been staunch supporters of its continuation and others have been totally opposed to it. A few years ago, we thought that we might be able to close the airport and build a car factory on the site—I do not think I am giving away any secrets—but that deal fell through.
In my view, the local authority sometimes exaggerates the economic importance of the airport. I have talked to local business leaders, most of whom believe that Coventry airport brings very little economic advantage to


the city. The airport is only 10 or 12 miles from Birmingham, and because of the nature of freight these days, there are not a lot of jobs involved with it, although there are people who depend on it for their livelihoods. The local authority should bear it in mind—and review its policies accordingly—that an alternative to the continuation of Coventry airport is other economic development.
I have some difficulties with the local authority's powers over the airport. If we are going to put responsibilities on councils, we need to give them power to take action so that we can hold them accountable.
There is a desperate need for regulation that will prevent such an accident from occurring in the future, or at least minimise its likelihood. The British people know and understand certain aspects of the life that goes on around them.
For example, they understand why new regulations are being introduced to control the number of hours that lorry drivers are allowed to drive. They were amazed by this report when it revealed that in the 1990s people were allowed to fly excessive hours; people were in charge of an aircraft when their command of the English language left a lot to be desired; and people were able to operate an aircraft into and out of an airport when their instrumentation was incompatible with the instrumentation available at the airport.
People in Coventry and throughout the length and breadth of the country find it incredible that such things are allowed to happen. The central demand that arises from this debate must be that the Minister should look with some urgency at the regulations that have allowed this to happen. They must be brought up to date to ensure that the air space around our towns and cities is operated in a modern and safe manner so that we are not imposing a massive danger on people in the future.
Lord Goschen, the Minister for Aviation and Shipping, said that the main issue was parliamentary time. I have already said that I cannot believe that. If it is not about a dogmatic desire to deregulate in every area of our public life or a strange fear of giving local authorities any powers, the Government must take some action and take it now, without further delay.

Mr. Brian Wilson: This has been an important debate. It is a particularly appropriate subject for the longer Adjournment debates that have been introduced in the House. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham) on initiating the debate and on the tenacity with which he has pursued the issue over a long period. It must be a source of satisfaction to him to raise the subject on the Floor of the House and to find such consensus on the need for prompt action from the Government. We will listen to the Minister with great interest.
This is a good example of someone saying what he has to say in a relatively brief speech so as to enable others to participate. As a result, we have heard a range of excellent speeches from both sides of the House, displaying a remarkable degree of agreement on the causes of the problem and the need for a Government response. The onus will be on the Minister to provide that response.
The debate has taken place on several tiers. First, there was the immediate tragedy and the clear consensus that it was an accident waiting to happen. There were also the

particular circumstances at Coventry airport. There does not seem to be much disagreement within the House that, for a long time, the arrangements there have left much to be desired.
On that score, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) said that it was a matter for the local authority. Clearly, the local authority has played a prime role as the owner of the airport and has pursued the policies that have been described in order to attract extra business. However, such action creates a potential conflict of interest between ownership and self-regulation. Therefore, it cannot be a matter only for the local authority.
Local authorities, irrespective of political complexion, need to be controlled when commercial interests are involved. It must be a matter for regulation. Our prime concern is that it has taken so long to put in place a regulatory regime that takes the onus off the local authority. If one is not allowed to do certain things, one cannot do them. If one is allowed by law to operate in a certain way, when commercial interests are involved, the limits are often pushed to a point at which they conflict with other legitimate interests.
The overwhelming view of the House is that the Minister should tell us that regulatory measures will be put in place to constrict the activities of the operator at Coventry airport and other operators throughout the country. I agree strongly with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) that it is laughable to say that such measures cannot be put in place because of a lack of parliamentary time. As everybody knows, the business of the House is being spun out on a weekly basis to try to find something to do in the pre-election period. The idea that there is no time to legislate on a matter that involves safety and appears to command a remarkable degree of consensus is wrong. It is wide open for the Government to legislate and to build on the consensus.

Mr. Pawsey: Do I understand from what the hon. Gentleman said that he would support the introduction of legislation based on the Department of Transport's "Review of aircraft noise legislation—announcement of conclusions"? I agree that we should find time to introduce the legislation, but I do not agree with his statement about spinning out time in the run-up to a general election. I thought that that was gilding the lily a bit.

Mr. Wilson: Far be it from me to disturb even mildly the spirit of consensus that has prevailed for all of 55 minutes.
The point is that, if there were a will to legislate, there would be time to do so. Obviously, the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) would not expect me to give any specific commitments when we have not seen any legislation, but it is clear from what has been said this morning and from what I hope will be said by the Minister, that there is general agreement on the need for legislative action. If I was being non-consensual, I would throw the question back and ask why there is a consultation paper dated August 1991 on aircraft noise legislation and a review of aircraft legislation dated March 1993, yet we still have no legislation before the House.
The debate has raised wider issues which cause me great concern. They relate to the regulation of international aviation and the way in which it impinges


on our country. The list of conclusions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East includes national and international issues as well as those specific to Coventry. The crew allowed the plane to go too low, so there was a question of competence. The crew were over-tired, and there are enormous issues involved in that. There was a lack of communication between pilots, and the pilot involved spoke little English, which is the international language of aviation. There was inappropriate navigational equipment and there were inadequate weather warnings from Coventry.
Some of those issues are specific to Coventry and to the particular incident, but others fit into a far wider framework. We must look to the Minister to say what will be done at Coventry and to talk about the national regulatory issue. The Government must press hard in international forums to ensure that the potential for such abuse is extinguished.
I find strong parallels between what has been described here and the way in which the maritime industry has moved in recent years. As it happens, I was at a lunch yesterday addressed by the chief executive of Singapore Airlines. Quite independently of this debate, his description of competitive trends in international aviation made me think in the same way as this debate. He was talking about hiring foreign flag crews in aviation. That conjures up images of the factors that contributed to the decline of merchant shipping in this country and to a sharp reduction in safety standards. He said that it was because of the growth of commercial pressures and competition. However, we have to ensure that there is an international order in aviation that draws a high bottom line and precludes the possibility of cost cutting through a reduction in safety measures.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Steve Norris): indicated assent.

Mr. Wilson: I see that the Minister agrees with that point.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East said, people find it incredible that in this day and age, quite legally, substandard aeroplanes can fly into Coventry, or any other British airport, with pilots who do not speak English and who cannot properly communicate. Our concern goes far beyond the specific tragedy. We need an urgent and strong reaction from the Government to counter such problems, because a similar tragedy could happen at any airport that is used by aircraft in which the same conditions prevail.
It is always attractive to think that good can come out of tragedy. It would be satisfying to my hon. Friends, to Conservative Members who have spoken in the debate and to those who have been bereaved by the tragedy and who have suffered such trauma if, as a result of the lessons that have come to the surface following the Coventry air crash, steps were taken that were specific to Coventry, the Government showed urgency in introducing noise regulations to alleviate the burden of those living in proximity to over-used airfields and alarm bells rang about the potential for disaster on a much wider scale unless we accept that there is a real threat from a reduction in acceptable safety standards in the operation and crewing of aircraft. On all those fronts, we shall listen with interest to the Minister.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Steve Norris): I shall pick up the invitation given by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson). I believe that he is right to say that this is a useful opportunity to review some of the circumstances surrounding the accident, both in the specific context of Coventry and in the wider context of the issues he raises about the control of international aviation. I congratulate the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham) on securing this debate. He is an assiduous Member of Parliament, and he has prosecuted the interests of his constituents with his customary assiduity. I very much welcome the general thrust of the contributions from the hon. Members for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) and for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner), and from my hon. Friends the Members for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) and for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith).
It is clear from all six speeches that we are, essentially, dealing with two major issues: first, the circumstances surrounding the crash of the aircraft at Coventry and the issues that flow from that, which were rightly identified by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North; and, secondly, the general issue of the location and status of the airport and its subsequent development, and the developments in the law and in the powers available to various authorities to deal with the development of Coventry airport and other similar airports.
I share the desire of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East that I should restate my Department's sympathy for those bereaved as a result of the tragic accident. My noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping wishes specifically to join in that expression of sympathy. I fully understand the anxiety of many of the hon. Gentleman's constituents who live close to Coventry airport. I hope that we can allay some of those concerns by going through the action that my Department has taken to ensure that foreign aircraft that fly to the United Kingdom are safe and by reiterating our determination that foreign aircraft should operate to an acceptable level.
It may be helpful for me to say a little about the safety system under which international aviation operates. International civil aviation, since the second world war, has operated on the basis that all states join the International Civil Aviation Organisation—ICAO—and, as signatories to it, accept and comply with the annexes to the Chicago convention, which establishes a number of minimum standards for the safe operation of aircraft. The system of mutual interdependence is reinforced by specific articles in the convention, including an obligation that states will accept certificates and licences provided by another state.
In practice, that system is the only sensible way in which to establish standards on a worldwide basis. Without that system, every state would need to check every foreign aircraft entering its territory against its own national standards, although it would, presumably, be obliged to allow the aircraft to land. It might be possible to detain the aircraft and to prevent it from flying off, but it would not be practical simply to have national legislation that imposed standards on aircraft coming in unseen to any nation state. The obligation has to be to have an international agreement which requires all signatories to the ICAO convention to reach an acceptable standard.
We firmly believe that the ICAO system provides the only practical basis for organising safety on a worldwide basis. In a moment, I shall refer to the detailed ways in which the present arrangements are being improved. The Government have taken a number of measures following the Coventry crash.

Mr. Wilson: May I again draw the maritime parallel? What the Minister has described was, until quite recently, the Government's view of how to handle the safety of ships coming into British ports. There was then a significant and welcome policy change as a result of which the level of inspection in British ports was greatly increased, with dramatic results. The inspection established the high proportion of foreign flag vessels in particular that were seriously substandard. There must be a parallel to that which does not conflict with the general formula that the Minister has set out. It would be widely welcomed if we knew that we had an inspectorate that was liable to turn up at Coventry airport, or any other airport, and say, "Right, we are holding this plane until we have checked every nut, bolt and crew qualification."

Mr. Norris: It is perfectly fair for the hon. Gentleman to draw that analogy. He knows that, in maritime terms, there are two issues. One is that an individual port state can take action to improve maritime safety. The other is that it is, none the less, necessary to seek, through the International Maritime Organisation, a general increase in safety standards. The hon. Gentleman knows that the greatest truism in marine safety is that flag state control is infinitely superior to port state control.
The aviation equivalent is that, although it is important to have appropriate safety checks in this country to deal with aircraft, from whichever country they arrive, to ensure that their safety is adequate, we also need—this is recognised throughout the world and is underpinned by the point the hon. Gentleman correctly made about the proliferation of airlines throughout the world, whether from the former Soviet Union, from Africa or elsewhere—a basic, high standard of safety, operated worldwide by nation states that allow aircraft to be registered by them and then to take to the air.

Mr. Wilson: I want to pursue that last point, because the Minister attributed to me a view that I do not hold. I am sure that 90 per cent. of flag states control their shipping more effectively than port state control can. However, we both know that there are flag states with disastrous records which have no interest in controlling their shipping, but see it purely as a commercial operation—I refer to the flags of convenience states. By the same token, if there is a possibility that there are countries that register aeroplanes, but do not carry out proper controls, port state controls become much more effective.

Mr. Norris: In all honesty, there is not much between the hon. Gentleman and me on this matter. He makes a fair point. The parallel is that no one has an interest in allowing airlines to operate substandard aircraft from countries whose standards are perhaps not as good as those operated in the United Kingdom, but my point is none the less valid and extremely important. It is necessary, despite its imperfection, to have an international system that requires standards from its members and enforces those standards to whatever degree

possible while ensuring that domestic legislation allows for effective safety monitoring. The parallel between marine and aviation safety is fair, at least on that point.
At present, we fully reflect our ICAO obligations. With the exception of European economic area aircraft performing intra-EEA flights, which do not need a permit, all other aircraft wishing to perform a public transport to or from the UK must obtain a permit from my Department. Before that permit is granted, we must be satisfied on a number of points.

Mr. Olner: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Norris: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I would rather make some progress.
The key points are: first, has the airline been approved by its authorities as being competent to operate the type of flight concerned? Secondly, has the aircraft been certified as airworthy by the aeronautical authority of the country of registration? Thirdly, does the airline have adequate insurance? Confirmation of those points is normally obtained by the airline submitting appropriate documentation. If we have any doubts about safety standards, we do not issue a permit until those doubts have been resolved. That may mean that we have to consult the aeronautical authorities in the country concerned, asking the Civil Aviation Authority to conduct a physical inspection of the aircraft or to visit the country concerned and to clarify safety oversight procedures.
For example, in this case, in view of local concern about cargo charter flights operated by foreign airlines, we decided to ask the CAA to inspect any aircraft wishing to perform similar flights from Coventry airport. Aircraft operated by Nigerian and Russian airlines were inspected. In both cases, the CAA identified breaches of ICAO safety standards. As a result, we deferred consideration of the permit applications while we took up the matter with the Nigerian and Russian authorities.
In the event, the Nigerian airline subsequently withdrew its application to operate from Coventry. In the case of the Russian airlines, permits were granted, but only after the faults identified by the CAA had been rectified and the CAA had re-inspected the aircraft to confirm airworthiness standards. During the past year, the CAA has undertaken a number of inspections of foreign aircraft at our request. In two cases, aircraft from Tajikistan and Sweden were detained on safety grounds.
Turning to the circumstances of this unfortunate accident, may I deal first with the unauthorised nature of the flights. Although an application for the flight had been received from Phoenix Aviation, the UK charterer, at the time of the flight, no permit had been issued. We had not been satisfied that all our documentary requirements had been met and were waiting for Phoenix Aviation to provide the outstanding documents on behalf of the airline. In particular, we were seeking to clarify the leasing arrangements.
Although an Air Algerie aircraft was to be used, it was to be wet-leased—Air Algerie would provide both aircraft and flight crew—by a Ghanaian airline known as Race Cargo. That meant that checks had to be made with the Ghanaian authorities to ensure that Race Cargo was certified to use the Air Algerie aircraft and that Air Algerie's insurance arrangements covered the type of


flights concerned. I stress that responsibility for the safety of the aircraft rests with Air Algerie rather than with Phoenix Aviation or any of the other parties involved.
As the operation of flights from Coventry by Air Algerie had not been authorised, any flights operated were in breach of the air navigation order. Therefore, with the assistance of the CAA, we conducted an inquiry into the circumstances of the flights to consider whether any prosecution action should be initiated. However, Phoenix Aviation was placed into voluntary liquidation before any charges could be laid.
The inquiry revealed that a number of flights had operated without the Department's knowledge. It was clear, therefore, that existing procedures for monitoring permits should be reviewed. Under the existing system, copies of all the permits issued to foreign airlines are sent to the relevant UK airport to be used by the foreign airline. If an airport authority had doubts about whether an airline had been granted a permit, it was expected that that authority would contact my Department to clarify the position. This case clearly suggested that that system might not be working as effectively as it should. We are therefore consulting the Aerodrome Operators Association, which represents UK airports, to consider whether the existing liaison arrangements between it and the Department can be improved.
It is clear from the findings of the accident report recently published by the air accident investigation branch that this unfortunate accident resulted essentially from human error. In its thorough report, the AAIB has considered all relevant factors, including the condition of the aircraft. In its view, first, the aircraft had been maintained and was serviceable with no significant defects; secondly, there was no evidence to suggest that the aircraft experienced any systems failure or malfunctions that would have caused the collision with the pylon; thirdly, the estimated weight and loading of the aircraft were within normal limits at the time of the accident; and, fourthly, there was sufficient fuel on board to divert if necessary.
There has been some suggestion—it has been mentioned in the debate today—that the aircraft's inability to receive the Coventry instrument landing system may have been a contributory factor to the accident as it meant that the crew were unable to perform what is known as a precision-approach landing. I am advised that the approach performed by the crew—a non-precision approach—was consistent with the approach procedure set out in the aircraft's operating manual.
On whether aircraft in the UK are required to have ILS equipment compatible with the equipment at Coventry airport, the use of the ILS is just one of a number of acceptable methods for landing in conditions of poor visibility. UK aircraft are required to carry varying levels of radio and radio navigation equipment according to the circumstances of the flights that they are undertaking.
In this case, the AAIB report noted that the crew failed to comply with the operating procedures for non-precision approaches set out in the aircraft's manual and that the aircraft was allowed to descend below the normal approach glidepath. The AAIB also considers that the performance of the flight crew was impaired by the effects

of tiredness resulting from the change from day duty to night duty, which was extended to just over 10 hours because of unforeseen circumstances.
There is no international common standard for crew flight time limitations, although the European Joint Aviation Authorities is in the process of agreeing on harmonised FTL requirements. Every state has the option of determining its own standards in this sector. The Algerian FTL for night duties allows for a maximum duty period of seven hours 45 minutes on four sectors. That scheme is more restrictive than that allowed for pilots in the UK.
In this case, the Algerian crew had been on duty for more than two hours in excess of the normal limit laid down by the Algerian authorities, but there is provision in the FTL scheme for duty hours to be exceeded under exceptional circumstances such as a weather diversion. That is in the nature of operating aircraft internationally. The aircraft had been diverted from Coventry because of visibility conditions and landed at East Midlands airport. Once advised of improved weather conditions at Coventry, the aircraft took off from East Midlands and made a second unsuccessful attempt to land at Coventry. It would appear, therefore, that the Algerian crew were operating in accordance with their FTL scheme, although there is no question but that they had been on duty for about 10 hours.
The AAIB makes a number of recommendations. One of them, specifically directed at the Department, calls for a review in permit procedures. My noble Friend the Minster for Aviation and Shipping announced on 10 January that the Department had already acted to amend its procedures for the approval of the operation of wet-leased aircraft by foreign airlines. Those amended procedures now require the provision of a statement from the applicant airline as to which airline's operations and flight manuals will be applicable for the proposed flight. That change will clarify permit responsibilities as regards future applications involving the use of wet-leased aircraft.
On the general issue of safety, my Department has been reviewing how best to monitor the safety standards of foreign aircraft operating to the United Kingdom. I referred earlier to the ICAO system for establishing international standards. The fact that there has been generally good aviation safety is a tribute to the effectiveness of that system so far, but concerns have rightly been expressed about whether these standards are being uniformly applied. We have therefore decided to introduce a number of new measures designed to increase the safety oversight of safety standards of foreign aircraft operating to the UK. Details of those new measures were announced on 10 January by my noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping.
The measures will include increased surveillance of foreign aircraft operating to the UK, as the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North suggested. My Department will ask the CAA to undertake more inspections of foreign registered aircraft when there is doubt as to whether international safety standards established by the ICAO are being observed.
We shall also assist the ICAO in the implementation of its own system to monitor member states' adherence to the ICAO safety standards. This follows extensive lobbying by the UK Government to persuade fellow member states that ICAO needed some form of monitoring programme to


ensure that its standards were being observed. Starting next month, teams including experts from the CAA will be visiting ICAO member states to assess whether ICAO safety standards are being observed.
The Government believe it essential for all countries to ensure that they fulfil their obligations under the Chicago convention and ensure the safety of all aircraft for which they are responsible. It is the responsibility of all states to maintain vigorous oversight of all aircraft that they license and certify. As for the UK, foreign aircraft are now subject to increased surveillance; and if doubts emerge about the safety standards of particular aircraft, we shall not hesitate to take action to ensure that international safety standards are observed.

Mr. Robert Ainsworth: Am I right in understanding the Minister to say that the Government are refusing to improve the regulations as they apply in the United Kingdom, or to make them stricter than the minimum international regulations? Is the Minister proposing merely to improve the surveillance of those international regulations? The people of Coventry want to know whether the Government are prepared to take action to improve the regulations as they apply to the United Kingdom.

Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman will serve his constituents best by properly reflecting the position that I have just outlined. The ICAO safety standards are acceptably high. If properly observed and maintained, they allow for the perfectly safe operation of international aircraft. The British Government have always maintained such safety standards. The thrust of my remarks and of those by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North is that some member states do not comply as thoroughly as they should with the ICAO conditions. It is important, therefore, to carry out more inspections on the ground of these aircraft—that is what the Opposition spokesman called for—and to target those inspections on airlines that may be identified as not operating to the correct standards.
The citizens of Coventry may take considerable reassurance from the speed and urgency with which the British Government introduced the new regulations following this incident. They should also be encouraged by the speed and assiduity with which the Government were prepared to react to an event that exposed some of the inadequacies of the present reporting arrangements.
Another important element in this debate, raised by several hon. Members, concerned the extent to which Coventry airport has changed over time. I would not dream of contradicting them; after all, hon. Members who are local to the area see what happens there every day and every week. Coventry now ranks as the sixth largest freight airport in the UK. Its freight tonnage rose from 700 in 1990 to 28,900 in 1994. This expansion of freight activity has doubtless been responsible for a considerable improvement in the local economy.
I fear I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East, who suggested that the airport had brought very little to Coventry—if I quote him correctly. Instead, I agree with my hon. Friends who have said that everyone recognises that airports are two-headed beasts: they bring considerable benefits to local economies, which is why they are sought after by many towns and cities, and why improving them plays a prominent part

in the plans of many Labour local authorities and local authorities of all complexions; but they have a significant environmental impact, which is why it is necessary to institute a proper regime of control.
We have consulted on, and published, our proposals for new aircraft noise legislation, and we believe that they are the right way forward. They are quite separate from planning legislation and are not intended to deal with planning issues. In theory, it would be perfectly possible for the local authority to alter the planning consent that the airport currently enjoys and within which it operates, but to do so would be unprecedented, not least because it would almost certainly require substantial amounts of compensation to be paid out—an inevitable part of the planning system.
Our proposals, on the other hand, are designed to strengthen the local accountability of aerodromes and to encourage the development of best practice and of measures to reduce disturbance caused by activities allowed under current planning permission.
The operator at the airport has established an airport consultative committee which meets regularly. It is not my place to comment on the efficacy or otherwise of the arrangements—except to say that at the heart of the Government's proposals are enabling provisions to underpin the voluntary measures taken by aerodrome operators. They would be backed by reserve powers to designate an aerodrome if voluntary measures are shown not to be effective.
We remain firmly of the view that this is the right way forward. Work on producing national guidance is currently in hand. I should make it clear that we do not believe it appropriate for central Government to play a role in determining what is best for the circumstances at each aerodrome, of whatever size. As the hon. Member for Nuneaton suggested, the airport was originally very small. There are many similar airports throughout the country, and it would not be right for central Government to override the legitimate interests of local communities, which should be the arbiters of what might constitute the right operating regimes. We lack the local knowledge to undertake the task, and it would be wrong to do it.

Mr. Wilson: I am slightly disturbed by that rather broad statement of principle. There must obviously be local discretion as regards detailed operations, but is the Minister suggesting that any commercial operator or entrepreneurial local authority can turn an airstrip into a major cargo airport, and that it is not the business of the Government to offer any form of protection to people living in neighbouring areas? If so, that is a dangerous principle.

Mr. Norris: It would be if it was the one that I was articulating, but it is not. I repeat that the proposals suggest that we would back, by reserve powers to designate an aerodrome, the voluntary measures that we believe are, in the first instance, the right way forward. That arrangement allows for maximum local input. The hon. Gentleman is right that it would be necessary to ensure that if arrangements for, say, local consultation were blatantly inadequate, statutory underpinning would be necessary. That principle is not disputed by any hon. Member.
Contrary to what was suggested by the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East, parliamentary time is at a premium. While it has not been possible to incorporate the legislation in the current Session, we remain committed to its introduction as soon as the parliamentary timetable allows.

Retail Parks (Leeds)

Dr. Keith Hampson: I welcome the opportunity to draw my hon. Friend the Minister's attention to issues in my constituency, notably those triggered by the proposal by the John Lewis Partnership for a large department store and Waitrose supermarket on the university halls of residence playing fields at Bodington.
Local councillors and action groups have for some time wanted me to raise the matter at the highest level that I could. Councillor Keith Loudon said:
This proposal to put a department store on Bodington field is opposed by virtually the whole community, from university students, who see their sporting facilities moved to an almost inaccessible location, to the elderly in Holt Park, who see their supermarket within walking distance threatened with closure, to users of the A660 and the ring road, who fear the traffic congestion.
That is the view of the councillor for the area.
The councillor in the adjoining seat, Ann Castle, said that a public meeting at St. Chad's showed the public dissatisfaction with the council about the future of Bodington. She drew attention to the fact that Leeds city council tried to
railroad planning permission through when it had an alleged interest but rejected permission when it does not.
That she, understandably, regarded as "breathtaking duplicity".
The leader of the Conservative group, Andrew Carter, summed up the underlying issue when he said that there was
a grave question mark hanging over the council's ability to neutrally administer planning applications".
I am not sure whether that is the right English, but the proposal has certainly triggered important broader issues.
The proposal has highlighted the unsatisfactory nature of the unitary development plan, or UDP, system. That process is going on now and has been for ever and a day. It has highlighted the double standards of the Labour group that controls Leeds in handling planning applications. Moreover—this is germane to my hon. Friend the Minister—what may happen in my constituency is in blatant disregard of the Government's planning guidelines.
The university vice-chancellor has stressed to me—this is the university's land and he clearly needs substantial development money—that there is no deal. He said:
There is absolutely no question of the city council receiving any money from the proposed sale of our Lawnswood land to John Lewis.
I do not for one moment challenge that, but it does not address the real issue, which is that Leeds city council tried to enter a deal and wanted money from it. It wanted half the net profit that the university would have got from the sale of land. The vice-chancellor says that that deal was at a much earlier stage, but it was as late as 1993.
I have a copy of the co-operative agreement that was drawn up and of the commentary on it by the chief development officer. In his commentary, dated 31 March 1993, he outlines the scale of the pay-off. It would have provided the city with £1.5 million if the net offer had been low as £3 million—that is 50 per cent. If the offer had been more than £12 million, it would have got

£4.5 million. It is hard to understand how, as the city council has such an interest in the site—even though it did not ultimately sign the deal—it can be objective and neutral. In fact, it backed off as soon as Tory councillors found out about it. They blew the whistle on this hole-in-the-corner deal and it was never signed.
Paragraph 2.4 of the chief development officer's document says that, in return for the money,
the council would accept specific limitations on the use of its own site"—
the Lawnswood school site, on the other side of the ring road and—
not submit a competing retail planning application; nor will it as landowner object to a superstore application on the university site.
That is trying to create a Chinese wall, which is not how the Labour caucus works in Leeds. The vice-chancellor emphasised that he had been talking to the council
in its capacity as a landowner rather than as a planning authority.
That is to regard the city council as a two-headed monster. It is a monster, but to believe that its planning decision will not be influenced by the fact that it is trying to get £4.5 million out of the site is perverse.
The essence of my argument is that people perceive the decision as having been influenced. However good the scheme is—I met the John Lewis Partnership people so that I could know exactly what was being proposed, and in many ways, it is a sensitively designed scheme—if people believe that the city council has different standards for gauging different planning applications, the planning process is brought into discredit.
Nobody in my patch believes that the council can be objective or impartial about that development—or any development on the site. It is determined to develop it. If, as the council admitted in the 1993 document, it was not prepared to propose an alternative scheme or to object to an application for a superstore, the clear implication is that it was prepared to agree to such an application. As a result, local newspapers have carried headlines about the £4 million deal uproar. The widespread opposition triggered this debate.
In considering more closely how the city council handles its planning applications, I draw attention to another example on the edge of my constituency. The Government rightly set up the urban development corporation for the central part of Leeds and especially for the Kirkstall valley, where Headingley rugby football club needed to sell its playing fields to merge with Roundhay, to produce a more viable and effective Leeds rugby club. Over many years, its proposals for developing the site were objected to by the city council and by Labour councillors.
The UDC took a more sympathetic view and planning permission was given to Morrisons. Since then, the city council and the Labour group have not accepted the procedures, and fought tooth and claw on every conceivable ground to delay the scheme. It is still being delayed by High Court actions. Another case is due in a fortnight or so. It is challenging part of the scheme involving land belonging to a charity, the Leeds Schools Sports Association, which desperately needs money. Its small playing field, which is attached to the main site, should be part of the scheme. Writs have been issued against the charity commissioners. Anything that can be challenged, such as this, or highways approvals—


a 278 highways agreement—is being challenged to delay the development. Yet within a mile of that site, on the site of the old Burton clothes factory—the Cardigan fields site—the city council raised no objections to an even bigger development than the Morrisons development on the Headingley rugby ground. I think that the reason for that is obvious: in the case of Cardigan fields, the council hoped to gain about £1.5 million.
Squeezed between the different approaches that could be described as double standards is a valuable charitable body, which does much good work in helping inner-city Leeds children to develop their sporting capabilities. Because of delays, the Leeds Schools Sports Association has already lost £500,000, and, if the project does not go ahead, it is likely to lose £1 million. Labour is very good at bleating about its capacity for care, concern and compassion, and its interest in the redevelopment of inner cities; but when it comes to the test, the party acts very differently.
Rumour is rife in the city, and the council's integrity in regard to planning matters has been damaged. Indeed, it is being said that planning approval is more probable if the council is likely to make money out of it. Will my hon. Friend the Minister give an indication—I doubt that he can do more—that, if and when the John Lewis Partnership makes a planning application for the Bodington fields site, he will be minded to call it in and take the decision out of the council's hands? I know that the matter is not of great regional significance, but it is very important to the city of Leeds. Given public opinion, I do not think that the council will be able to convince people that its view is impartial and neutral.
Let me deal with the broader issue. The unitary development plan may be a dream for planners and lawyers, but for the rest of us it is a nightmare. It is imposing huge costs and anxieties on individuals, parish councils and anyone who challenges proposals; it is a process that is going on and on. The inspector is assiduous; everyone speaks favourably of the way in which he is handling the matter, and everyone is allowed a say. This, however, must be the biggest single plan for a city in the history of planning. My hon. Friend the Minister may be able to confirm that no structure plan has been opposed by so many people, on the basis of so many features.
There is now a planning hiatus, and a serious risk of prolonged planning blight. Part of the reason for that relates to the council's UDP procedures. Is Leeds behaving in a way that is out of the ordinary, and should it have acted more expeditiously? Perhaps my hon. Friend can clarify that. Nothing can be decided in any part of the city until every aspect of the plan has been decided. When will the protracted agony end, and when will my constituents know what will happen to Bodington fields? I fear that we shall know nothing until well into 1998, and the problem will not be over: my constituents will have to deal with the same arguments again when John Lewis submits a formal planning application.
The John Lewis plan is very detailed. It shows all the greenery, raised areas for screening purposes, buildings and so forth. Why is a UDP inspector being given such a detailed plan? I have always understood that structural plans are about broad general use.
Let me be more specific. If the plan is approved on the basis of all that remorseless detail—traffic flow information, for instance—what will happen if

John Lewis pulls out, or wants to change its plans? Will the inspector be able to tie down the development so that it remains as he approves it? Alternatively, will John Lewis—or someone else—be able to submit yet another plan which, because the site was approved in the UDP for retail development, could produce a quite different planning application? Given that none of us trusts the city council to do other than pass a retail application for the site, my constituents might then be landed not with a relatively sensitively designed scheme but with something appalling, as happened in 1986.
In 1986, when the university and the developers submitted a scheme, the city council was on the residents' side, and opposed it. There has been a remarkable U-turn. In its appeal, the council then said:
There is…a clear and unavoidable conclusion that the development of the appeal proposals would seriously threaten the attempts of the City Council to maintain and enhance its city, town and district centres … Such development would undoubtedly conflict with the strong and unequal guidance from Central Government which seeks to prevent development which would undermine the vitality and viability of existing centres.
The council also attacked the traffic impact. One of the key factors in the dismissal of the appeal was the impact on traffic patterns. I cannot envisage a lessening of that problem in 10 years. Although a new road across the site, linking the ring road and Otley road, will ease the pressure on the roundabout, the traffic-light junction is likely to cause more congestion on the ring road. There is a lot of wishful thinking about the park-and-ride facilities: it is hoped that they will stop people from driving into the city centre. It is said that the Harvey Nichols store will act as a city-centre magnet, encouraging people to go into the centre. On the other hand, they will supposedly be attracted to the John Lewis store outside the centre; is it conceivable that they will then travel further in on a bus, to do more shopping? In fact, people will not behave like that.
The supertram is also cited, but, at the current rate, it may not operate in my lifetime. If people are going to visit the store, they will travel by car, and if they are going to go on they will go round the ring road to Marks and Spencer: they will not go into the city centre.
The development will, however, draw from a huge area. Even John Lewis's planning proposals show that it aims to tap a huge arc of prosperous satellites north of the city, running quite a long way into North Yorkshire; and why should we imagine that the development will not appeal to the south of the city? The Ikea superstore is one of many huge developments in the south, and it draws many people—including me—from the north. Those who travel through the city will add to traffic flows and pollution. In 1986, the city council used all those arguments in opposing development on the site, but it is ignoring them now and claiming that traffic problems will be eased.
Local councils are supposed to take the Government's planning policy guidance into account in designing their development plans. Remarkably quickly, we have received a revised version of the last definitive guidance. Note 6 was put out for consultation in July last year—I believe that the consultation ended in October. When will it be implemented? It is clearly central to the current debate in Leeds. Has Leeds followed the guidance? It has not even followed its guidance to itself in many respects. In its own "Leeds Countryside Strategy" document, it describes the playing fields as part of a
network of urban green corridors"—


the lungs of the city. It now ignores the evidence that it gave in 1986–87 and it has ignored its policy documents in other areas, but, more important, is it ignoring the Government's guidance, which it must heed?
The consultation document clearly reinforces the Government's determination to revive and create more vital town centres and to protect neighbourhood centres. Rather than harming town centres by putting large-scale out-of-town developments in place, the document is concerned with promoting strategies for improving town centres and the retail developments in them. It does not preclude out-of-town developments, but it spells out certain important criteria against which they should be assessed: for example, the
impact on existing centres; their accessibility by a choice of means of transport; and their impact on the overall amount of car travel.
In other words, it is trying to reduce reliance on the private car.
The document's central aim is to sustain and enhance the viability of town centres and to
support local and neighbourhood centres.
Leeds city council cannot show that the Bodington scheme matches any of the criteria. Evidence that the city gave in 1986–87 showed that town centres in my constituency, in Otley, which is nearby, in Holt Park, which is closer still to the development, in Headingley, on the other side of the ring road, in Horsforth, which is down the ring road, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw), and in Moor Allerton, which is across in north-east Leeds, will be severely damaged. It is absurd.
Turnover could be diverted in Holt Park by about 42 per cent., in Headingley by 36 per cent., in Otley by 12 per cent. and in Horsforth by 38 per cent. Those towns are already struggling to maintain viable town centres. Many shops in the centre of Otley have closed; many more have been turned into charity shops. The Asda supermarket at Holt Park—the linchpin of the development of Holt Park—is a smaller, older supermarket, but Asda would invest much more money in it if there were no development on the ring road at Bodington. If Bodington were developed, it would have a terrible knock-on effect at Holt Park and the store would close.
There is no case, in terms of the situation that we faced in 1986–87 or the developments since, which should lead the city council to make such a horrendous U-turn. One really cannot trust Labour in Leeds. It proclaims how much it cares, but when it comes to the crunch, dogma prevails. It makes a song and dance of listening to residents in Labour wards, but ignores the strong feelings of residents in Conservative wards. Understandably, there is a great sense of outrage in my constituency.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) for raising the issue of out-of-town retail parks. He described in graphic detail—given time, he could have added to the detail—the difficulties that some Labour planning authorities impose on local residents.
He asked many questions and I shall answer as many as I can, but I shall have to write to him; otherwise I will have only about 30 seconds to answer each one, and some of the answers are more complicated than the questions.
I am aware—one cannot help but be aware—of the local concern and controversy about retail parks that are proposed for the north-west of Leeds, and I note the worries about the possible development of land at Bodington fields. As my hon. Friend is aware, there has been a history of interest in retail development of the area, and in 1989 proposals for a shopping and leisure development were turned down on the recommendation of one of the Secretary of State's inspectors. That in itself raises a question.
More recently, in 1993, Leeds city council made proposals in the draft Leeds unitary development plan. It proposed a range of policies for shopping and retail development in the city. Among those, I have identified locations where the council—I emphasise the word "council"—thinks that there is potential for major convenience goods retailing. One of the locations is West Park and the Westwood area of north-west Leeds. The council takes the view that there is a deficiency in facilities for selling convenience goods, which might be remedied by developing part of the Leeds university playing fields at Bodington Hall. On that basis, the council made a proposal in the unitary plan for such a development at Bodington fields.
As my hon. Friend knows, we attach considerable importance, for good reason, to settling local planning policy through preparing development plans, such as the Leeds unitary plan. That process allows for widespread consultation about the plan and its proposals for development on particular sites. It is an important opportunity for local residents to put their views. It allows the public to comment on the plan and to make formal objections, which are then considered by an independent inspector at a public local inquiry.
If the matter was straightforward and was moving with the grain of local residents, one would not expect much of a necessity for consultation. One would expect the unitary development plan to proceed, as it has in many areas, with simplicity and without taking too much time, but in this case some 19,000 objections were made to the Leeds UDP. Only one other council, which, I suspect, is notable for a similar attitude, managed to beat that record—Bradford. It is worth emphasising that the system works where the plan goes with the grain. Where it is imaginative, local residents will go along with it and understand, but in this case there were some 19,000 objections.
Some 200 or 300 of my hon. Friend's constituents have already taken advantage of their rights and objected to the proposal for Bodington fields. The public local inquiry into objections about the Leeds unitary plan has been under way for some months. I understand that the inquiry inspector will consider all objections to the city council's intentions for the retail development later this month. During the inquiry, the inspector will consider objections about a number of retail sites and consider options that have been suggested by constituents and, perhaps, by prospective developers. One such proposal might be at Woodside quarries in north-west Leeds, and there is controversy about that, too.
My hon. Friend asked about the reaction of the UDP inspector to the specific and minute details of the scheme submitted by John Lewis. As he is aware, the inspector deals only with broad issues; he does not approve anything. The John Lewis application is not before him. The inspector makes broad recommendations.
The inquiry inspector has a duty to look carefully at all the objections—all 19,000 of them in the case of the Leeds UDP. In due course—it will be some time away, because of the length of the inquiry into the Leeds plan—he will make recommendations to the council. The council must then decide the final form of the plan after considering the objections and recommendations. That is to ensure protection for the people of the area. That is why the process has taken so long in this case. The procedures then allow for another round of public consultation about any modifications that the council might propose, including a right of objection.
I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise that the plans provide a distinct safeguard to ensure that major decisions about development are not taken without a full hearing and an appreciation of all the points of view. Obviously, it would be wrong for me to predict the outcome of the inspector's consideration and the view that the council might eventually take, but our national guidance on retail policy will be a major consideration in any of the decisions.
The Government's key objectives for town centres and retail developments are to sustain and enhance the viability and vitality of town centres; to focus retail development in locations where the proximity of competing businesses facilitates competition from which all consumers can benefit; to ensure the availability of a wide range of shops, services and facilities to which people may have easy access; to maximise the opportunity for shoppers and other town centre users to use a means of transport other than the car; and to maintain an efficient and innovative retail sector. All those objectives must be taken into account in the Leeds unitary development plan and in the two cases that my hon. Friend mentioned.
As everyone is abundantly aware, there has been considerable concern about the development at Bodington fields. There is nothing to prevent a planning application being submitted and, as my hon. Friend says, such an application has been made. The matter might eventually require a decision by the Secretary of State either because the city council refers it to him or, in the event of refusal, because there is an appeal. As my hon. Friend is aware, for that reason I cannot specifically comment.
The city council will receive any planning application for a retail park in Leeds, and it will be expected to have regard to the current development plan and to the emergent plan, although there may be uncertainties about the planning status of the site. If its status is not firmly established in an adopted plan, which is a plan that has passed through all the stages of preparation, objection, inquiry—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. We must move on.

European Funding (South-West)

1 pm

Miss Emma Nicholson: I am grateful for this opportunity to discuss the problems that I and my colleagues see as caused by the Government because of their weak approach to European funding for projects in the south-west. I shall refer first to a report called "No Go South West 1996, Bureaucracy Run Riot—How Whitehall Blocks Britain's Euro Funds". That Liberal Democrat document was produced by Robin Teverson, a Member of the European Parliament. His earlier document called "No Go South West 1995" was warmly received by business men in the south-west. Mr. Bell, the managing director of Curnow Shipping, said:
I thought 'No Go South West' was an accurate, succinct situation report. Since its earliest days I have been a member of SWEL's Euro sub-committee so ably run by Paul Davis … At one of our regular meetings, about two years ago, there was a trio from Government Office South West. At the end of the meeting I voiced the suspicion that 5(b) funds were never going to flow our way because the Treasury saw them as being added to the PSBR. The reaction was volcanic: the sky duly fell in on me: It was very obvious that I had touched a raw nerve.
It is sadly significant that Minister David Curry avoids any mention of the Treasury's attitude and the other three Departments beyond GOSW.
I shall quote another brief comment from Mike Boxall, the chief executive of the West Country development corporation. He is one of the ambassadors for that corporation as are many of my colleagues. He said:
I believe your paper 'No Go South West' has provided a very useful contribution to resolving an unsatisfactory situation and I also believe that lessons learned from the experience of the last two years or so should be remembered for future programmes … we are still awaiting the Guidelines for this involvement by the Private Sector and you can imagine the frustrations this brings.
Alison Best, the senior policy adviser for the National Farmers Union, said:
We share your disappointment that the Minister has failed to acknowledge the current problems of accessing European funding. According to our information only three projects have been accepted for submission to the next meeting of the EAGGF Working Group and there is a further eight or so which MAFF may regard as suitable for submission. There are at least 24 applications which we have been told will be delayed until the June meeting of the Working Group at the earliest … our suggestion here is obviously what are the facilitators supposed to be doing?
I have many such comments, but a summary of the problem is that the Government simply do not care, despite the positive regional policy that is driven at European level and which has meant that Plymouth, Cornwall and Devon are in line for major funding for economic development. In the period 1994–96 Plymouth has been allocated £23 million of Euro-funding, and Cornwall has access to £170 million of projecting 5b funding earmarked for the south-west. Europe wants local and regional communities to decide for themselves how funds should be used, and it involves itself in administration and paperwork only for the largest projects.
Thanks to the Government, nearly two years into the programme, the south-west has seen very little hard cash. Of the £193 million of European money, only about £6 million has been received and 75 per cent.—three quarters—of projects that were approved by the working groups before November are still waiting for offer letters


because of delays by Government Departments. It takes an average of six months for Government offices to approve a scheme. That is wholly unsatisfactory, and it is the reason for the debate.
The paper chase is the key. Under this Government, Departments use 100 words where 10 would do. We have only to look at the IACS form from MAFF. Our version is the biggest, the most pedantic and the most time-consuming in the whole of Europe. But when it comes to applying for Euro-funding for the south-west, our Ministers seem to have made the largest effort of all. The application form is brevity itself, but unfortunately, after it has been filled in, it is downhill all the way.
Understaffed and perhaps unappreciated by the Government, the Government's regional office in the south-west tries hard, but it requires completed forms no less than four months before the date of the working group meeting. Anyone who applies now will get in for the June meeting—if he is lucky. If the date is missed by a day or two, he can forget it until October, by which time perhaps there will be a general election. Even if the form gets that far, staff shortages in the regional office mean that many forms are sent to Scotland for assessment by consultants.
Probably because of "No Go South West" and our pressure, two secondees have been employed at the south-west office to help with applications. However, that does not seem to help, because the applications are not getting through to the European Commissioner. At the last working group meeting, the commissioner was targeted as the person who had held up the meeting. However, one of the problems was that the Commissioner, Mr. Oreja, had not received the papers in time to look at them properly. He received them so late that he could not examine them thoroughly. He asked to hold up some projects for a week to look at them further, but the Department of the Environment said that that was a matter for national Government, and there was no way that he could delay matters for a week. The DoE said that, although the Government gave the Commissioner the papers very late.
Neither the UK nor the Commission currently recognises regional or local influence or responsibility for 5b, and that means that we could have sent the papers ourselves. That meeting took three hours longer than normal and people left it disillusioned and annoyed. Some new time limits were set at the meeting and were sorted out by the Commissioner. First, it was decided that as soon as a project has been approved at a working group meeting the project has to start within 12 months.
Secondly, as soon as a project has received a proper offer letter it must start within six months. But that falls, for the obvious reason that projects cannot hold on to EU money while millennium or national lottery funds are applied for. However, that sensible possibility lapses because some projects that have been approved are still waiting more than 12 months later for an offer letter. No time limits are set on the Government between working group approval and an offer letter. For example, the county's UK and overseas tourism marketing project was promised fast-track approval at the November working group meeting. The offer letter is still currently stuck

in the Department of National Heritage, as are more than 55 letters. When David Curry wrote, he said that nearly £23 million had been approved.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I remind the hon. Lady that it is customary not to use a name in this House, but to refer to a constituency or to a ministerial title.

Miss Emma Nicholson: The Minister stated that nearly £23 million had been approved and more than 60 offer letters issued for European regional redevelopment funding alone. I am sorry to say that that was incorrect. When he wrote the letter, the £23 million represented the 192 projects that were awaiting offer letters. Indeed, 60 offer letters had been received from 192 projects, but 55 are still waiting for offer letters. The tourism budget is on hold until the end of 1996 as a result of the huge demand for the money. It is sad that the Government's incompetence is causing that astonishing shortage in funding.

Mr. David Harris: While in no way arguing that there are not delays—indeed there are, and we should streamline the procedures—I should point out to the hon. Lady that someone came to see me a fortnight ago about a delay in an application. When I looked into the matter, I found that the proposal had been submitted late. When I went back, I was told that those involved had met the deadline. Does she accept that not all the fault lies with the Government, as she is obviously trying to suggest?

Miss Nicholson: I am happy to accept that comment. I do not know what has happened in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but in my constituency—where I have problems with the Leader II project—everything that I said, alas, has been valid and accurate. I took the Leader II team from Holsworthy to see the Minister, but it made no difference at all.
The hon. Gentleman, whose work on the common fisheries policy is well known, might like to think about the money that is wasted by Whitehall on the fisheries investment programme, which should come back on track. Although Ministers were forced to take us back into the scheme to buy off a few Euro-rebels, it is sad that we still have not had money for any of those projects. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would be sad to know that the money is available, but not for those who need it. It is such a small, sensible and well-targeted programme, and he will agree that it could make all the difference to fishing ports in the south-west which are struggling against the onslaught of competition.
I cannot imagine why the Government would not fund the project—they are guilty of typical penny-pinching that would make Scrooge blanche. It is avarice, and the Government are putting the tidiness of their accounts before the survival of vibrant and energetic rural fishing communities. I believe that that is a very important point that the hon. Gentleman will respect and honour. I cannot comment on his constituency, but I know from my constituency's problems that his comments are not correct.
Once a form goes through the Government office for the south-west, it wends its way through Whitehall. The gap between the approval of a project and the receipt


of a letter could go into "Alice in Wonderland". Many Departments are involved. I have referred to the Department of Heritage, and there are cases in which three other Departments have been asked to comment. The result of such an interdepartmental spat will be that an application will go from Department to Department and—perhaps after about nine months, if one is lucky—an offer letter will be sent.
I have dealt with many of these funding issues, and I speak from the heart on behalf of my constituents. The misery is that by the time a letter is sent, the official start date for the project has gone. That is the real result of the Government's action. If a project is worthy of EU funding, it must be a real project and not make-believe. If those involved want a project to start, they either have to expect a delay—that is happening, tragically, in my constituency—or find some money to cover the appallingly long interim period.
The problem in my constituency and most other areas of the south-west—although west Devon and Cornwall are particularly affected—is that people cannot find that sort of cash anywhere, and that is why EU regional funding is critical for our future. We know that we need outside help—even if the Government do not—to overcome recent economic disadvantages. In many areas farming, agriculture and food production, processing and distribution are the primary economic engines. In my area, however, we have grade 3 or grade 4 land. One cannot make much money from culm measures, even if a fraction of the funding is provided by the Department of the Environment. The situation is tough—there are only two fields of grade 2 land in my entire constituency, for example—so the south-west will always require assistance.
What has happened to the European money that has been pledged to us—some £200 million for 1994 to 1999? Instead of funding hundreds of projects across the south-west, it is tucked away in the Government's bank accounts, earning a healthy rate of interest for the Chancellor. We believe that the Treasury has been sitting on at least £43 million-worth of European funds in transit from Brussels to Britain's most disadvantaged areas. By last autumn, a mere £6 million had reached the intended areas. When the remainder is finally wrested out of Whitehall—if we manage that—I am certain that it will not be inclusive of interest. In other words, the delays have not just inconvenienced the south-west, but short-changed us.
Every time Europe offers the south-west a hand up, the Government knock us down. When the south-west's fishing ports stood to benefit from the European structure investment programme, Ministers withdrew. When Robin Teverson, a Liberal Democrat Member of the European Parliament, successfully persuaded the Commission to include the Penzance to London railway line in plans for a high-speed network, he did so despite the opposition of Conservative Members of the European Parliament. Sadly, the Government have made it clear that they will continue to oppose the plan in the Council of Ministers. No wonder people in the south-west have lost all faith in the Government's ability or desire to help them.

Mr. Harris: The hon. Lady is going too far. She is now criticising the Government she wanted to join at the end of last year.

Miss Nicholson: Far from it. I can provide my former Conservative colleague with letters saying that I—as an

ambassador for the south-west—supported that link. A number of former colleagues have plundered selected sentences from letters that I have written to constituents in the past four years. My two former Conservative colleagues from the south-west who are here today are honourable men, although some may not be. They are more than welcome to look through my entire filing cabinet at all my constituency letters. If they did, they would find that I have not short-changed my constituents, just as the hon. Member for St. Ives has not short-changed his constituents. I think it unlikely that the two Conservative Members who are here today would disagree with most of what I have said.
I am aware that it is imperative that I allow the Minister some time to reply, as I have put a number of questions to him. I despair, however, and I do not believe that the penny-pinching will be affected by the debate today. Good will, common sense and decisive action for the south-west are certainly too much to ask for from the Government.
When Robin Teverson sent his report to those consulted during its creation and to those affected by the delays, he received a sackful of replies, not one of which dismissed it as political propaganda. In fact, they all said that, if anything, the outlook was even darker than he had painted. All but one, that is. The response from the Minister for the Environment and Countryside stood out. From his vantage point, the outlook for the south-west was rosy, although I do not suppose that he has seen any of our recent water bills. Perhaps he did not listen at the meetings held in the past few years with the Prime Minister, which produced nothing. He found nothing to criticise, and proposed no remedial action at all.
All he has to do, it seems, is to sit back and wait for the smoothly oiled Whitehall machine to deliver bounty and prosperity across the south-west. I am sad to say that he must have a different south-west in mind. Perhaps he was thinking of the south-west of one of his addresses in Belgravia, where the part of London that he looks across is indeed part of the prosperous south-east. The south-west, alas, thanks to Government action, is missing £194 million of funding over the past two years. We could use that money.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Miss Nicholson) says that she is an ambassador for the south-west. If she really is an ambassador for the south-west, it is going to continue to sink. She has voiced a number of misconceptions, which I shall try to correct in the short time available.
The European programmes are a success and are combining well with our programmes such as the single regeneration budget, challenge fund, English partnerships and rural challenge. The hon. Lady has not shown a notable interest in European programmes until now; I certainly have had no correspondence with her. Her interest, if belated, is nonetheless welcome because it gives me an opportunity to correct misconceptions.
There has been little significant economic development in west Devon in recent years which has not benefited from a combination of funding, including European funding. The Pitts Cleave industrial estate at Tavistock


and the West Devon business information project are examples of projects in the current 5b programme. I hope that the hon. Lady acknowledges the excellent Meadowlands leisure pool facility in Tavistock, which was aided by an earlier programme.
The Government have secured a very substantial increase in European funding for the south-west—more than £228 million of grant available from the structural funds up to 1999. With match funding, the total investment from the public and private sectors will be almost £460 million. The programmes include £170 million from the objective 5b rural development programme for Devon, Cornwall, the Isles of Scilly and west Somerset. It is by far the largest 5b programme in England, yet the hon. Lady says that it is one of the smallest.

Mr. Paul Tyler: rose—

Sir Paul Beresford: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not give way, as I have very little time and I have a great deal to say and much to cover.
As I was saying, the programme includes £23 million for Plymouth, under objective 2, for areas of industrial decline; £8.9 million from the Leader II programme to help rural communities in Cornwall and Devon—almost half the total for England. This matter must be put in perspective. The hon. Lady is one-eyed in her view. As the saying goes, "There are none so blind as those who will not see." The programme also includes £13.4 million from the United Kingdom's Konver II programme for areas affected by defence restructuring, which has recently been approved. The whole of Devon and Cornwall, Wiltshire, Avon and parts of Somerset, Dorset and Gloucestershire are eligible—but the hon. Lady did not mention that. There is some £3.2 million from the PESCA programme for areas affected by restructuring of the fishing industry.
Those programmes often combine with other Government programmes where the south-west has also been successful—such as SRB challenge fund in which Devon and Cornwall have won some £34 million in the first two bidding rounds. Projects coming forward benefit in many cases from both European funding and SRB funding. The SRB often provides the match funding on which the hon. Lady touched.

Mr. Robert Hicks: I appreciate that my hon. Friend is in a robust and boisterous mood, given New Zealand's victory, sadly, over England in the first game of the world cup. For the benefit of the House, will he differentiate between allocations—which I suspect he is talking about—and actual take-up? Most of us are worried about the low take-up in response to the very generous allocations from the various project funds.

Sir Paul Beresford: I shall try to touch on some of the points my hon. Friend raised. I note his reference to my ancestry. I guess that he is insinuating that I have failed the Tebbit test. I usually cheer for one side but bet on the other. It looks as though I am not out of money this time.
Delays cannot be laid at Government's door, although the hon. Lady made a good attempt to do so. The objective 2 and 5b programmes were due to start in

January 1994. However, the Commission's approval was not forthcoming until December 1994—one year late. So, the true picture is that these programmes have been running for barely one year. That explains some of the difficulties mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Hicks).
In 1995, arrangements were set up for consulting local partners and inviting and appraising applications. Publicity and guidance were sent out and advice given to countless applicants on how to access the funds. The Plymouth objective 2 programme has largely been settled with about 75 per cent. of the money committed. In the objective 5b programme, more than £35 million has already been allocated,—rather more, in fact, than two years' worth of the total programme. Therefore, to a degree we have caught up on the delayed start.
Overall, more than 730 applications have been received-531 of those, 75 per cent., have been appraised and considered by local partnership working groups; 154 applications have been either rejected or withdrawn; 237 projects have received offers of grant totalling more than £36 million; and many more will shortly get offer letters. I note that today, to continue with the misconceptions, a letter has been received from Cornwall county council saying that 60 offer letters have been issued on which decisions have been made, and that there are 32 approvals outstanding. I am sorry about the counting—the correct figures are that 88 offer letters have been issued, with another 104 projects with the working group awaiting recommendations.
All that adds up to a remarkable achievement in one year, yet the hon. Lady apparently wishes to decry it as red tape. On the contrary, it demonstrates the considerable demand for the programmes, the effort organisations and individuals have put in to create worthwhile projects and the Government's commitment to the success of the programme. It also reflects the very hard work of our new Government office for the south-west in Plymouth. The money is getting through to the people on the ground. Almost £7.5 million of grant has already been paid.

Mr. Tyler: rose—

Sir Paul Beresford: No, I am not giving way. I have only four minutes and I need to cover millions of pounds of project money.
Surprisingly, many projects are failing to come forward with claims, especially in the first quarter. That is not to say that there is no room for improvement, especially in the south-west. My hon. Friends have been making these points and following them up for some considerable time, in contrast to Liberal Democrat Members. In the south-west, the Government office has already published some excellent guidance and targets have been set for dealing with applications within four months.

Miss Emma Nicholson: rose—

Sir Paul Beresford: The hon. Lady had better sit tight. She asked for figures and answers—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] No, I will not give way. The hon. Lady took more than her share of the time available. She asked for answers and I am trying to give them to her.
The Government office will keep applicants informed of progress and will inform them, within eight weeks, of any issues which need to be raised, in order to keep


matters moving forward. Additional guidance and seminars are planned, in particular about private sector involvement in applications. These developments reflect the commitment of the Government to ensuring the success of European funding programmes in the south-west.
The Leader II and Konver II programmes have also been crucially delayed awaiting the Commission's approval. Leader II was due to start in November 1994, when Leader I ended. The Commission's approval was not forthcoming until July 1995—we are talking not about weeks, but months—and this has placed a considerable strain on the on-going projects in west Cornwall and North Tamar, whose administration costs have had to be covered without European grant. I am pleased to say that grant towards these costs—some £68,000—will be paid by the end of this month.

Miss Emma Nicholson: rose—

Sir Paul Beresford: The hon. Lady asked for answers, but she has given me little time to answer.
There has been a complaint that the money has been held by Whitehall. That is nonsense and it shows how little some of the Euro experts understand about the system of funding. Money is paid from the funds to national Government in advance of local expenditure on projects. As the Government are a net contributor of funds, on balance we lose by that system. There are no so-called delays of Euro-funds from the Treasury.
There was also a comment about the time that it takes for the Government to examine programmes. Surely the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon accepts that it is appropriate carefully to scrutinise funding and applications when utilising public money. We must receive value for money through those programmes and assess them before they are allowed to go forward. The systems that apply nationally for the appraisal of applications and the monitoring of projects are far tighter than for previous structural funds, and that is largely because the Government have pressed for more careful scrutiny. The money is working through the system, and the Government have exceeded themselves to ensure that the money reaches the people that it should go to in the south-west.

Blighted Homes

Sir Terence Higgins: I am glad to have this opportunity to raise the subject of the Department of Transport's discretionary purchase of blighted homes, and to see my hon. Friend the Minister in his place. I know that he has taken an intense interest in this subject. Today's debate is an extension of the debate which took place on 15 May last year on, broadly speaking, the same subject. Therefore, I need to spend only a little time outlining the background.
The Minister and the House will know that I have been much concerned with the development of the A27 in the Worthing area. We have had a public inquiry that lasted almost a year, the report of which has now been tabled. I expect that the Department will publish the report in the near future.
The effect of blight is almost entirely on the Government's preferred route and has little effect, if any—a matter of half a dozen houses or fewer—on the bypass route. Which route is selected is obviously a great concern because the choice will affect enormously the degree of blight. I hope that, in his reply, my hon. Friend will tell us when he expects the inspector's report to be produced and when the Secretary of State expects to make a decision on it. There has already been great concern about the length of time that it has taken to reach a decision; uncertainty is one of the major problems that my constituents face in this matter.
In relation to the choice of route, I shall say nothing more than that I hope to present a petition that contains more than 15,000 signatures of people who favour the bypass route rather than the Government's preferred route, which would have a serious effect on the town. I have no doubt at all that the bypass is the right option, and I shall do all that I can to ensure that it, rather than the other route, is selected. Meanwhile, many houses have been blighted, some of which have been purchased on a discretionary basis by the Department of Transport.
My hon. Friend the Minister will know only too well that, some time ago, the Department of Transport lost a court case on this matter. The case is now quite famous. One of the conclusions was that the criteria the Government used in exercising their discretion were not right. Consequently, a review of the various guidelines took place, and that was still taking place when we had last year's debate. The guidelines have of course been published subsequently, and they give me grave cause for concern.
The essential point is that section 62(2) of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 states that the highway authority may
acquire by agreement land the enjoyment of which will in their opinion be seriously affected by the carrying out of work or the use
of the highway. Essentially, the criteria which are used in determining that are at issue. The Government recognise that the criteria that they originally used were wrong. The way in which they handled the matter was backed up by a number of ombudsman reports, which I mentioned in the previous debate and which the Department has recognised showed a deficiency in the process.
It is extremely important that those decisions are taken at ministerial level. They seriously affect the lives of people, and not only in relation to the road and the noise.
The decision must take into account, for example, medical conditions and the effect on job opportunities because people cannot move. Despite the assurances that I was given in the previous debate, I am concerned because my constituents have received letters from officials that say that they have decided one thing or another. This is a matter for ministerial discretion, and the responsibility should not be assumed by officials, even under the next steps agency arrangements, because they cannot take a sufficiently broad view.
The crucial point is that the Department is now prepared to include the decline of property values in the criteria it uses. It is absolutely clear that, if the value of property declines as a result of the building or proposed building of a road on a particular route—this may also be true in relation to railways—the fact that the value has declined shows that the enjoyment of the property is likely to be diminished. I should have thought that that was not open to serious dispute—the courts have taken the same view—but this is what has happened. Paragraph 7 of the guidelines states:
We will not normally offer to buy your property unless we are of the opinion that it will be seriously affected by BOTH diminution in value AND noise arising during the construction period or during the first year following the opening of the road to traffic".
It contains an exception for medical reasons.
There is nothing in the legislation that requires both criteria to be met. It is clear that, if the value has declined, that would be a necessary and sufficient condition for discretion to be exercised. I take the view that it is unreasonable—which is an important aspect of it—if the Department does not act in that way because the legislation says nothing whatever about also taking noise into account. In a sense, that is the crux of the matter. If one were merely to take the diminution in value into account, the discretion would have been exercised in a great many other cases. I shall return to this issue later.
I do not know whether it was as a result of this impending debate but, yesterday, I suddenly received no fewer than three responses from the Department about particular cases. My secretary, who is perhaps more cynical than I am, expressed some surprise at their timing. However, I must say that they have given me further cause for disquiet.
One response says that the individual cases are being reconsidered with all the evidence and that
I am able to inform you that, based on the current information, we have formed the opinion that your enjoyment of your property will be seriously affected by the severe aggravation of an existing medical condition by physical factors caused by the construction of the Worthing-Lancing improvement.
However, these physical factors are not likely to arise for another two years when the construction of the scheme is expected to start".
In effect, the Department is saying that it will defer consideration of whether to exercise discretion to buy until nine months before the start of construction. My hon. Friend the Minister is nodding in the affirmative.
People are suffering from medical conditions, it is accepted that their property has been seriously affected, and yet they are now being told that they can re-apply later and that the Department may or may not then exercise its discretion. That creates a degree of uncertainty for people who are suffering from serious medical

conditions, as the Department recognises, which is really quite intolerable. It is simply a device to improve the Treasury's cash flow, or it may, ultimately, not happen at all.
When individuals' lives are being seriously affected in this manner, such delay should not occur. Since I have not previously received many letters like those I have mentioned, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will carefully examine the issue. I do not think that one can procrastinate as the Department is now proposing.
I return to the question of diminishing value. The situation is developing in an interesting way. In many cases, my constituents have received replies that say that the Department recognises that the value of their property has diminished, but that the question of noise must also be taken into account. That is the Department's view, and it is not what is stated in the legislation. Some of the cases have been refused on the basis that the two criteria have not been met. I have had trouble having the diminishing value quantified but, fortunately, a couple of months ago, I received a letter which was sent to my constituent that recognised a reduction in value and quantified it. It said:
We have carefully considered the valuation evidence submitted by the Agency's Valuer and have concluded that the diminution in value due solely to the road scheme is 16.7 per cent.
The letter then lists the unaffected market value as £150,000, the current market value as £125,000 and the reduction in value as £25,000.
Despite that, the Highways Agency is not proposing to purchase the property, even though my constituent has clearly suffered a loss of £25,000 as a result of the Government's road scheme. The application is being turned down on the grounds that noise must also be taken into account. That is not right, and bears out what I said previously. The building of roads and infrastructure—it is also true for railways—is, effectively, highway robbery. Roads are being built at the expense of people who happen to have the bad luck to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The cost should be borne by the community as a whole. People should be compensated or their property purchased to avoid suffering, which is no fault of their own, as a result of a Government decision over which they had no control.
I do not doubt that, over the Minister's head, is the shadow of a Treasury Minister. Although my own halo is a little out of date, it is still there, and I do not doubt that the sums involved are substantial. Across the country, we are probably talking about hundreds of millions—perhaps billions—of pounds and I can understand why my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be concerned about it. All that that sum reflects is the extent to which individuals are suffering as a result of present policy. I therefore argue strongly that we ought to change the policy and that at least one of the necessary and sufficient criteria ought to be reduction in value.
Another point, which I made in the previous debate, is that we are talking about gross cost to the Exchequer. Once the road has been built, the properties purchased by the Department can be re-sold. Although they will be worth less, they will certainly not be valueless. It is important to consider the long-term net cost rather than the gross cost.
Although I have described an important point of principle that affects not only my constituency but many parts of the country, I hope that the solution to it will be


simple. I hope that, in the light of the inspector's report, the Government will come down in favour of the bypass and at most have to purchase only about half a dozen houses. They could re-sell the houses that they previously bought and the area presently blighted could be reinstated. Much of the problem has arisen because the houses that have been bought—I am glad that they have been bought—have been occupied by unsuitable tenants, causing the whole area to fall in value and creating additional problems.
My hon. Friend the Minister is not unsympathetic to my view. I very much hope that rapid decisions on the cases will be made, especially the medical cases, because the uncertainty that I described cannot continue. A serious interdepartmental review of broad, longer-term policy is needed—perhaps considering the experience in France where one simply pays over the odds and far fewer problems of planning blight result. I hope that such a review would produce a sensible and just result, unlike what we have at the moment.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Steve Norris): I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) for raising the issue and for giving us a further opportunity to debate a subject, which, as he said, he raised on 17 May. I should like to express my personal appreciation of my right hon. Friend who, sadly, is due to retire at the end of this Parliament. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), who no doubt has an interest in these matters, is in his place. My right hon. Friend has been a distinguished Member for a number of years and has shown his customary assiduity, application and interest in the affairs of his constituents as vigorously as ever on this important issue. I pay genuine tribute to him. I hope that he will allow me to deal in very specific and rather legalistic terms with a number of the issues that he has raised.
Since the previous debate, there has been a review of the trunk road programme in England, as a result of which 77 schemes, of which the environmental impact was no longer considered to be acceptable in relation to the benefits, were removed from the programme. In those schemes, the route protection is being withdrawn and owners of property on or near the routes will no longer be affected by the prospect of road improvements.
Other important bypass and relief road proposals remain in the programme, including the proposal to improve the A27 between Worthing and Lancing. As my right hon. Friend said, the scheme has a long history, which I shall not go into again. The review of the programme confirmed its importance as a much-needed improvement to the only east-west trunk road route south of the M25.
Following consultation on four route options, a public inquiry, to which my right hon. Friend referred, ended, as he knows, on 24 August 1994. I can inform him that the inspector's report following that inquiry has been received by my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport. It is inevitably a lengthy document. We will give it very careful consideration and make an announcement as soon as possible.
I know that my right hon. Friend will appreciate that I cannot comment on any of the issues involved in the report, whether they relate to the route or to the

desirability of one or other option, while my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is taking a quasi-judicial decision on the matter. Nor of course can I make any prediction about the outcome. I note my right hon. Friend's concern that, whatever the outcome, there should be an early decision and I shall of course draw that to the attention of the officials involved in considering the report.

Sir Terence Higgins: What is the position on publication of the inspector's report?

Mr. Norris: I will have to write to my right hon. Friend about the report's content and the timing of its publication. I have no reason to believe that the report will eventually be treated in anything other than the normal way. Subject to whatever view my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport may take of the report, it will find its way into the public domain.
The announcement that I made on 19 July of new guidelines for use by the Highways Agency in considering applications for discretionary purchase of property seriously affected by trunk road schemes require, as my right hon. Friend said, the Court of Appeal judgment in what is now known as the Owen case of 30 June 1994 to be taken into account. The guidelines require the agency to consider diminution in value of a property as well as the predicted effects of noise and other physical factors when forming an opinion, as is required by the relevant legislation on whether enjoyment of the property will be affected by the construction or use of the road.
It is important to remind ourselves of the purpose of the discretionary purchase scheme. It is not the only opportunity for an individual to sell an affected property. The discretionary purchase scheme enables the Department to act as a buyer of last resort where the enjoyment of a property is or will be seriously affected by trunk road proposals, where the owner has a pressing need to move that is not connected to the road scheme and where hardship can result if the property cannot be sold except at a heavily discounted price.
Under the new guidelines, I shall also consider cases where the owner or another person who normally resides at the property has a medical condition that would be severely aggravated by the physical effects of construction work or use of the new road. My right hon. Friend referred to those three conditions, about which I wrote to him just the other day.
I must make it clear that the point of our treatment of medical conditions as my right hon. Friend described is that the effect of the scheme on the medical condition of the individuals concerned will not manifest itself until work starts. I hope that it is not inappropriate for me to endorse the comment made by my right hon. Friend, a former distinguished Treasury Minister himself, that that does indeed help Treasury cash flow. It would be an inappropriate use of public funds to acquire properties many years—in this case two years—before the likelihood of work commencing, where the rationale for a purchase under discretionary purchase rules is medical effect. That is why, in cases relating to medical condition, an offer to purchase is deferred, or owners are invited to reapply nearer the appropriate time.
I noted that my right hon. Friend said that that does—I shall not say might—cause further uncertainty in the minds of those who have been asked to re-apply. I shall


certainly reflect on that. I can confirm that it is not the purpose of the new guidelines to add to the perfectly understandable concern in such a situation; rather it is to recognise that, where the key to the request to purchase is a medical condition related to the onset of the scheme, the actual purchase should be broadly proximate to the start of works on the scheme.
The House may also be interested to know that, when revising the guidelines which are used for discretionary purchase in advance of construction work and which relate to the powers of section 246(2A) of the Highways Act 1980, we also considered the criteria for discretionary purchase during the course of construction or immediately after the new road is opened relating to other parts of section 246. Those criteria were relaxed and made more consistent with the guidelines applicable for discretionary purchase in advance of works and a number of owners whose properties are seriously affected by construction work or a newly opened road have benefited.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads promised in the debate on 17 May that all applications made for discretionary purchase under the relevant powers and rejected since the 1994 Court of Appeal judgment in the Owen case would be reconsidered. The majority of those cases have now been reconsidered under the new guidelines and owners informed of the result. Owners were given an opportunity to submit any relevant new information in support of their applications and new assessments have been made of predicted noise levels and physical effects. Information from professional valuers on diminution of value caused by scheme proposals has been obtained.
All that information has been taken into account in reaching new decisions on cases in accordance with the new guidelines. That has involved a great deal of work by the Highways Agency. I have, as my right hon. Friend was generous enough to say, taken a close personal interest in the many cases where the decision reached was borderline and where my right hon. Friend or other hon. Members may have made specific representations on behalf of their constituents.
I acknowledge the fact that, as my right hon. Friend said, some of the determinations will have been made by officials. That is where, ostensibly at least, the cases are not borderline and are relatively straightforward to determine, but I reiterate my outstanding offer that if I am asked to look again at any such decision by an hon. Member on behalf of a constituent, I shall most certainly undertake to do so. I appreciate that the thrust of my right hon. Friend's remarks is that these are important matters for people who are affected on whichever side of the guidelines they may eventually fall.
I should say that other owners, whose applications for discretionary purchase were rejected before June 1994, have also been given an opportunity, through advertisements in local newspapers, to apply to make fresh applications for consideration under the new guidelines. More than 50 cases are still being reconsidered and they will be dealt with as quickly as possible.
In connection with the A27 scheme, 48 applications have been considered or reconsidered under the new guidelines. In six cases, an offer to purchase has been made with immediate effect. A further five cases, in

which owners or occupiers have a medical condition, have been accepted in principle under the provisions of the guidelines for purchase at a later date to which I have just referred. Thirty applications have been rejected and seven are still under consideration.
The properties that the agency has agreed, or provisionally agreed, to buy under the new guidelines add to the total of more than 120 properties on which offers to buy had already been made in connection with the A27 scheme. None of those properties would be required for the proposed route of the scheme. It is our policy to seek to limit the effects on the character of a locality affected by trunk road proposals which may be caused by widespread advance purchase of property. It is with that aim in mind that, in the new guidelines, we intend to target offers to purchase on those properties which are seriously affected by physical factors, including noise and diminution in value.
The Highways Agency will, as my right hon. Friend suggests, also seek to return as many properties as possible that have been purchased under the discretionary powers to private ownership at the earliest possible opportunity. However, necessarily, the resale of property must avoid destabilising the market in the locality.

Sir Terence Higgins: I understand that, but my hon. Friend has not answered the fundamental point, which is that the reduction in value in itself is sufficient to reflect a serious reduction in the enjoyment of the property. That brings out clearly the need for the guidelines to be further revised. If anything, the change tightens the criteria.

Mr. Norris: I am aware that some owners have been disappointed that their applications have not been successful and feel that the guidelines should have been drawn more generously to allow the Highways Agency to purchase an even greater number of properties, but with regard to my right hon. Friend's example of a constituent whom he claims has lost £25,000—if I quote him correctly—and whom he describes as having been the victim of highway robbery, I remind him that the powers under the Highways Act 1980, which allow discretion to purchase properties of which enjoyment will be seriously affected are in addition to, not a substitute for, the provisions of the Land Compensation Act 1973, which clearly give owners the right to claim compensation for loss in value one year after a road has opened.
There is no obligation on the Highways Agency to acquire property which is not required for a scheme, and the use of guidelines to ensure that cases are considered in a fair and consistent manner has been established since 1992. The important point is that those discretionary powers are to be applied in cases where the person concerned has no foreknowledge of the effect of the scheme; where the person concerned or a person residing in the relevant property can show serious effect in terms of their enjoyment of the property, as defined, and as qualified as my right hon. Friend said, by the judgment in the Owen case; and where the individual concerned has a pressing need to have the property acquired in advance of the compensation available under part I of the 1973 Act, which inevitably will be paid to any person who can show the loss that I have outlined a year after the scheme has opened. Discretionary purchase is not a substitute for the part I compensation, it simply provides for those exceptional circumstances.
I acknowledge that my right hon. Friend is understandably concerned at the effect of the application of the new guidelines, but I stress that there is no sense in which they affect part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973, which remains the bulwark on which those who may be refused compensation in these cases can none the less rely if they continue to experience deterioration in the value of their property a year after the scheme has opened. It is that series of criteria taken together that it is important to bear in mind in these cases.
The new guidelines comply in full with the judgment given in the Court of Appeal in 1994. In the case of Owen, a further judicial review in November 1995 confirmed that the Secretary of State had not acted perversely or

irrationally in reaching the decision to reject Colonel Owen's application in accordance with the guidelines and Colonel Owen was refused leave to appeal that judgment on 12 February.
We will continue to consider applications in accordance with the two-stage process set out in the guidelines. Our intention remains to provide relief to owners whose enjoyment is seriously affected and who have a pressing need to sell in advance of entitlement to claim their statutory compensation.

It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Late Payment of Debts

Ms Coffey: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the impact on British firms of late payment by Government Departments. [13502]

The Minister for Small Business, Industry and Energy (Mr. Richard Page): The Government recognise the problems that the late payment of invoices can cause, particularly for small businesses. It is important that the public sector leads by example and settles its bills on time. My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury is responsible for Government Departments' payment policies and has instructed them to abide by the Confederation of British Industry prompt payers code and to publicise their payment policies. The average figure for Departments' payment performance in 1994–95 showed an improvement over 1993–94. The Department of Trade and Industry's payment performance has improved, rising to 93 per cent. in 1995–96.

Ms Coffey: Does the Minister agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that late payments can make the difference between survival and failure for many small businesses, or does he agree with the Deputy Prime Minister who has boasted of his own late payment policy? Does the Minister not regard the Government's £230 million of late paid bills in 1994–95 as a total disgrace?

Mr. Page: The Government should set a good example, and no hon. Member knows more than I the importance of prompt payment of bills to small businesses. A few years ago, the Government started to publicise their payment policies and the situation has improved, but it must get better. For example, last year the Department of Trade and Industry paid 93 per cent. of its bills in 30 days—that is, 13 of every 14 invoices were paid on time. A recent survey conducted by a reputable organisation found that the average payment time by medium and large companies is 48 days. The Government are setting a good example and leading the way.

Sir John Cope: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a great deal of support for the actions that he and the Government have taken over late payment which have led, for example, to the CBI code and to the company law statutory instrument obliging public limited companies to report their policy? Should not plcs be obliged to disclose in their annual reports what they have done during the past 12 months, as is the case for Government Departments?

Mr. Page: I note the comment that my right hon. Friend made about that statutory instrument, and it is currently being considered. However, no magic bullet can be fired which will automatically make the small business man or woman receive their money on time. I emphasise that there is a responsibility on every small business man

or woman to undertake proper credit control policies, rather than to hand out goods and services and hope that they will receive the money.

Mrs. Roche: How can the Minister be so complacent when the Government are threatening the very survival of many small businesses to which they owe millions of pounds? The Forum of Private Business found that one in five business owner-managers is prevented from expanding because of late payment. Does the Minister agree that this makes a complete mockery of the Government's hope to make Britain the enterprise centre of Europe?

Mr. Page: No one in Government is complacent about the present payment policies. When I was appointed to my present post a few months ago, the first thing that I did was to hold a series of bilateral discussions with every Minister responsible for small businesses in every Department. Having spoken to them about their payment policies, I know that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury is working on a policy to improve standards so that the Government, who are already setting a good example, can make it even better.

Overseas Trade Services

Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to assist the overseas trade services. [13503]

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Anthony Nelson): Through overseas trade services, my Department, together with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, provides the best-ever package of information, advice and practical assistance to all British companies wishing to explore new export opportunities.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Is my hon. Friend aware that companies such as BP in Azerbaijan and British American Tobacco in Uzbekistan have substantial exports to those countries? Does my hon. Friend agree that those large companies could act as pathfinders for smaller British companies to encourage our export efforts to those countries? For example, in Azerbaijan, the next big contract has just been let to an American hotel chain. Could we not have encouraged British companies to compete for that contract?

Mr. Nelson: My hon. Friend is right. Those are important contracts and the companies are important pioneers. I believe that they can pave the way for smaller companies to follow in their wake, but it is important to remember that many already do. Some 3,000 companies have participated in 200 missions and 8,000 exhibitors have taken part in trade fairs. They are following in the wake of the perhaps 20 or 30 companies which dominate our trade performance. They have to work together and I am sure that they do so.

Mr. MacShane: After tomorrow, can the Minister give a guarantee on overseas trade that no Minister will be signing any certificate which could send innocent British people to prison in order to promote the interests of MI6?

Mr. Nelson: Yes, I can give that assurance. That is the position that has obtained up to now and it will continue


in the future. I am the Minister responsible within the Department for export control of weapons. We take those responsibilities extremely seriously. We are not above learning from experience, but we intend to fulfil our national and international obligations under the law.

Mr. Elletson: Will my hon. Friend ensure that the overseas trade services continue to support British defence exporters? Is my hon. Friend aware of the particular importance of defence exports to the economy of Lancashire? Will he take this opportunity to condemn those Labour Members who spend their political lives undermining defence exports and defence jobs?

Mr. Nelson: I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. If we listened to Opposition Members, we would have closed down just about every export market that we have in the world, not just for defence equipment. The supply of legitimate defence equipment under article 51 of the United Nations convention to enable countries to defend themselves is wholly legitimate. It is in our national interest and it provides millions of jobs in constituencies represented by Opposition Members, although sometimes one would not think so.

Privatised Water Companies

Mr. Davidson: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will assess the current ability of the consumer organisations covering the privatised utilities to monitor the level of service given by the privatised water companies. [13505]

The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. John M. Taylor): In general, we are content with the existing consumer representation arrangements for the privatised utilities. For the water industry, the performance of the Ofwat customer service committees in monitoring levels of service is a matter for the Director General of Water Services.

Mr. Davidson: Does the Minister accept that, at a time when the number of complaints from consumers is ever rising, this is an area where adequate funding should be provided so as to ensure that the complaints can be dealt with adequately and so that there can be proper supervision of the privatised utilities?

Mr. Taylor: In England and Wales, new price limits for water have cut increases in charges. Water and sewerage companies promise further rebates to customers. The utilities now guarantee standards of service. However, I understand that there will always be some complaints and it is very much part of the Government's anxiety and ambition to ensure that the consumer protection arrangements are thorough and work effectively.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Is it not bizarre that Labour Members take every opportunity to attack the privatised utilities when their paymasters, the trade unions, invest their pension funds in those very utilities?

Mr. Taylor: Yes, it is a strange paradox that the trade union which sponsors the deputy leader of the Labour party is a heavy investor in the utilities. Since

privatisation, the National Consumer Council has been there to put the customers' view. I understand that the Director General of Water Services and the customer service committees regard integration of the committees with Ofwat as a virtue, not a weakness.

Mr. Harvey: Does the Minister believe that the consumer organisations are able adequately to address regional differences between rates of charge for privatised utilities? Is he aware that the south-west already pays twice as much for its water as other regions, and that electricity and gas are heading the same way? How does he think that the consumer organisations can address the economic development consequences for the south-west?

Mr. Taylor: One of the virtues of privatisation is that prices have been falling. The hon. Gentleman must accept, as I do, that there are necessarily regional variations. That is why there is no reason for consumer representation for public utilities to follow any particular model. The structure needs to reflect the particular market.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the privatisation of water has benefited the consumer through increased investment, better quality water and fewer drought orders than in 1976?

Mr. Taylor: I completely agree with my hon. Friend on every point, and especially on the fact that we are delivering some of the cleanest water in Europe.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: How can the Minister wash his hands of responsibility for the fact that complaints about water companies from customers have almost trebled?

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: He can now afford to do so.

Mr. Griffiths: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that water is cheaper, he should speak to his constituents, because it certainly is not. Why have the Government hamstrung the consumer organisations by consistently cutting their funding? The amount for the National Consumer Council has been cut, money for the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux has been cut by £767,000, funding for the Gas Consumers Council has been cut by £369,000 and even the consumer safety unit in the Department of Trade and Industry has had a £595,000 cut.

Mr. Taylor: I do not know how many of those questions the hon. Gentleman expects me to answer—[HON. MEMBERS: "All of them."] I shall make a portmanteau of all the hon. Gentleman's generalisations about funding. I especially draw his attention to the fact that the Government grant for NACAB, one of the organisations that he mentioned, has gone up this year by £600,000. Those arrangements have enabled us to have the privatised utilities—[Interruption.] The Labour party is all too keen to say that Governments meddle in consumer arrangements. Governments should not meddle in those arrangements, and part of the virtue of privatisation is to get the Government and Ministers out of the utilities.

Manufacturing Industry

Sir David Knox: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he next expects to meet the president of the Confederation of British Industry to discuss manufacturing industry. [13506]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Philip Oppenheim): My right hon. Friend and other DTI Ministers regularly meet the Confederation of British Industry to discuss a range of issues.

Sir David Knox: When my right hon. Friend next meets the president of the CBI, will he, after congratulating him on the improvement in manufacturing output over the past three years, discuss with him the fact that manufacturing output has gone up by only 10 per cent. since 1973? What steps might be taken to ensure that it goes up much faster in the next 20-odd years?

Mr. Oppenheim: I note that my hon. Friend started with the figure in 1973. One reason why manufacturing output has not gone up very much since 1973 is that, between 1974 and 1979, in the heroic days of Labour's industrial strategy, manufacturing output fell. Under this Government, manufacturing output has increased sharply. Not only has it increased, but we now have quality, exportable manufactures—in stark contrast with the situation in the 1970s.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Is not manufacturing the key to the economic growth of this country? Since 1979, we have lost 2.7 million jobs, especially in communities such as mine. What do the Government intend to do to create a situation in which we can have more investment in manufacturing and in which manufacturing is seen as more important than the service sector? What do the Government intend to do to create jobs?

Mr. Oppenheim: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that manufacturing is a vital sector of our economy. He will therefore be pleased to note that, whereas in the 1960s and 1970s manufacturing productivity growth in Britain was bottom compared with that of the G7 major industrialised countries, since 1980 Britain's manufacturing productivity growth has been top among the major industrialised countries. That is why industries such as British Steel, which was the world's largest loss maker, is now the most profitable in Europe, why an industry such as British Leyland, which was the butt of music hall jokes, is now producing high quality, exportable cars, and why British Airways, whose passengers rated it below Aeroflot, is now the world's favourite airline.

Mr. Wilkinson: Will my hon. Friend initiate a study by Department of Trade and Industry statisticians and suggest the same on the part of the CBI into the effect of European Union cohesion fund and European Union structural fund allocations to countries such as Spain, Portugal and Italy, which are able thereby, at the expense of the British taxpayer, to increase their manufacturing competitiveness and to cost Britain jobs?

Mr. Oppenheim: Despite cohesion funds, Britain still attracts 40 per cent. of Japanese and American inward

investment into Europe. That has been a great success story and has underpinned the massive improvement in British manufacturing competitiveness since 1979.

Mrs. Beckett: Does the Minister not recognise that the continuing concern of the CBI and others about Britain's manufacturing strength has been reinforced by the recent sustained fall in output described in the City as an appalling performance? Incidentally, the Minister will, I am sure, recognise that what he told the House about the last Labour Government's record is not correct. [Interruption.] It is not correct—I have told him that before. He must check his figures.
The Government still consistently refuse to take the advice either of the CBI or of engineering employers—let alone of Labour Members—and to take action that would encourage manufacturing investment, which is now 20 per cent. below the 1989 level. Is that not one of the main reasons why, far from being the enterprise centre of Europe, the UK has dropped from 13th to 18th in the world prosperity league?

Mr. Oppenheim: I can see that the right hon. Lady has nicely caught the spirit of St. Valentine's day. I shall not be so churlish and I wish her a happy Valentine's day.
My figures on the fall in manufacturing output under the last Labour Government are correct and I will send the right hon. Lady those figures so that she does not make the same mistake twice. [Interruption.] If she will be quiet for a minute and let me get a word in edgeways, I can tell her that investment has risen six times faster under this Government than under Labour. There is one big difference between investment now and investment in the 1970s: in those days, investment was directed by bureaucrats and politicians into low-grade, dossed-out, state-run industries, but investment nowadays is in high-grade, exportable manufactures.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my hon. Friend accept that manufacturing industry is the only genuine source of non-inflationary economic growth and that it is therefore essential that this country's manufacturing base is widened? Will he therefore not just talk to the CBI, which does not represent manufacturing industry in any adequate way, but spend as much if not more time talking to the Engineering Employers Federation, which does represent manufacturing industry, the United Kingdom Industry Group, which specifically represents manufacturing industry, and the Manufacturing and Construction Industries Alliance, which I formed with the support of Members of all parties in the House? Those are the organisations that are in touch with manufacturing industry, not the CBI.

Mr. Oppenheim: I thank my hon. Friend for his views. I agree with him about the importance of manufacturing industry. Although it is obviously not the sole generator of wealth in the economy, it is crucial. I agree also that it is important to speak to a range of organisations. Ministers in the DTI do that, and intend to continue doing so.

Balance of Trade

Mr. Olner: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the trade deficit with non-EU countries in 1995. [13507]

Mr. Oppenheim: The trade deficit with non-EU countries in 1995 was £7.5 billion.

Mr. Olner: Does that figure not show that manufacturing industry has been grossly inadequately looked after during the Government's stewardship? Is the Minister aware that the United Kingdom's deficit in manufactured goods is almost the worst in the world? The Government should do something about that.

Mr. Oppenheim: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that we also show a massive surplus on our invisible trade with non-EU countries. Those are important industries, not to be sneered at. If we factor them into the equation, the result is a massive surplus with non-EU countries.

Mr. Dunn: How would our trade with overseas countries be liable to be helped by the imposition of a minimum wage, which would cost jobs, and by the imposition of the social chapter, which would put the trade unions back in control?

Mr. Oppenheim: I entirely agree with the drift of my hon. Friend's point. The Opposition are very good at producing political escalator muzak—motherhood and apple pie, which sound good—but if they ever came to power we would have a tax on wages and jobs.

Mr. Sheerman: The Minister must know that we have had a deficit in manufactured products since 1983—let us get the record straight. It relates directly to the fact that, since 1979, there has been a 10 per cent. decline in investment in manufacturing industry. When the Minister talks to people, will he talk to them about long-term investment in our manufacturing sector—of the kind that has not taken place in recent years under the Conservative Government?

Mr. Oppenheim: I must take issue with the hon. Gentleman about one thing: there was only one year under the last Labour Government when our trade was in surplus—it was in deficit for all the other years. Secondly, the position of our manufacturing industry has been dramatically transformed. Our manufacturing productivity growth in the 1960s and 1970s was bottom of the league of major industrialised countries. Since 1980, we have been top of that league. That is reflected in the enhanced performance of our manufactured exports, which are now 90 per cent. higher in volume than in 1979.

Exports to Latin America

Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what support his Department is giving to exporters to Latin America. [13509]

Mr. Nelson: Nine export promoters are helping UK companies win business in Latin American markets, 26 trade missions and eight trade fairs are planned this year, and my Department has launched a three-year export promotion campaign, "Link into Latin America".

Mr. Arnold: May I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on inventing the posts of trade promoters, and say that the work that they have done already is remarkably

effective? One of the best ways in which Ministers can help British exports to Latin America is by continuing their growing practice of leading trade missions. I wish the Minister well for his forthcoming visit to Brazil, the powerhouse of Latin America, and to Chile.
When the Minister and his colleagues consider the transatlantic trade arrangements and the free trade area, will he bear in mind that the other side of the Atlantic does not consist solely of north America but also includes the powerful and growing economies of Latin America, which offer Britain such great opportunities? Will he do all he can to further Europe's transatlantic arrangements with the whole of America?

Mr. Nelson: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's sentiments. Latin America is increasingly recognised as a target and a priority market, although our performance there has not always matched expectations. I was down Mexico way myself last week, and I am off to Chile and Brazil next week, so I shall be doing as my hon. Friend suggests, taking with me business men and women from this country who are forging new markets with new products in Latin America. That is good. It is important to recognise, as my hon. Friend does, that the Americas are a big market. Mercosur and the North American Free Trade Agreement countries are increasingly making overtures to each other. Just as they regard the United Kingdom as the gateway to Europe, we must regard some of those countries as the gateway to NAFTA and Mercosur.

Mr. Dalyell: If the Minister can go down Mexico way, how about up the Orinoco? As the new Venezuelan ambassador has outlined the opportunities which exist in Venezuela, where we have less than 1 per cent. of the market—rather less than previously—could the three-year programme pay some attention to Venezuela?

Mr. Nelson: I take what the hon. Gentleman says seriously because he knows the country and the market. We have a market plan for Venezuela. He is right that it is an important market—it is, I believe, the 12th largest petroleum producer in the world—but it has serious economic issues to address. Inflation is running at between 70 and 90 per cent.—almost reminiscent of inflation rates under Labour Governments—it has had to devalue substantially, its exports are subject to great controls and it has stopped payments on, for example, the Scotch whisky industry, which is the biggest market in Latin America. There will be huge opportunities if it can get its economic act in order. If it can do that with the help of the International Monetary Fund later this year, the market will once again be open for business and British business men will be there in force.

UK-US Trade

Mr. Fabricant: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action he is taking to promote trade with the United States of America; and if he will make a statement. [13510]

The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian Lang): Overseas trade services, administered jointly by my Department and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office,


provide a package of support measures which help British businesses to compete in markets around the world, including the United States of America. A team of export promoters seconded to my Department from British industry also provide active assistance to British businesses.
My Department's "North America Now" campaign has for the past three years assisted British companies seeking to do business in the United States. The second phase of the campaign—to be launched in May—will continue the good work, focusing on opportunities for British businesses tackling the United States service sector.

Mr. Fabricant: I am grateful for that full and detailed answer. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as well as concentrating on exports to Europe, with which we have a long trading tradition, it is important to maintain ties with North America? It is no coincidence that the biggest single investor in capital in the United Kingdom is the United States and the biggest single investor in the United States is the United Kingdom. That is due not only to the common language but to the common legal system that we enjoy. Does my right hon. Friend agree that trade with the United States, let alone that with France and Germany, would be greatly damaged if a Labour Government were ever elected, and that a national minimum wage would price our workers out of their jobs?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. British exports to the United States last year were valued at £18 billion, an increase of 6.7 per cent., which is a good measure of improved British competitiveness and perhaps one of the reasons why unemployment has fallen yet again in the past month by 29.300, taking the rate down to 7.9 per cent. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and I are keen to have increased trade liberalisation across the Atlantic between the United States and Canada and Britain in the context of World Trade Organisation trade liberalisation world wide.

Mr. Bell: The House should welcome the question asked by the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant). The last time we had such a question was in 1903 from Austen Chamberlain, who believed in imperial preference and split the Tory party. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has the same hopes, but we shall watch his contribution in Lichfield with great interest.
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that tariffs between the United States and the European Union are down to 4 per cent. and that if we want to develop world trade it should be done through the financial services sector? My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) talked about the enterprise centre of Europe. Are not all the questions about American trade a smokescreen for competitive devaluations which regard the European Union as a single unit instead of getting down to the real question of a European Union in which we are at the centre of events?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is talking absolute nonsense. He is right to the extent that the improved tariff relationship between the United States and Europe, as a consequence of the recent completion of the Uruguay round, has increased the prospects for further trade liberalisation and enhanced the opportunities for trade

across the Atlantic. With regard to the service sector, he will be pleased to learn that the United Kingdom is the top foreign supplier of services to the United States, valued in 1994 at no less than £20 billion. That puts us abreast of the European Union countries and Japan.

Sir Donald Thompson: Does my right hon. Friend recall what he was told the other day in my constituency by representatives of a carpet firm that is exporting to America and, indeed, all over the world—as is a local machine tool company? They told him that, increasingly, competition abroad comes not from foreign companies but from other British companies.

Mr. Lang: I well remember my very encouraging visit to my hon. Friend's constituency. I also remember the enthusiastic support for the Government's economic and financial policies that I encountered there, and the success stories of our many manufacturing exporters which are contributing to the record figures that we are now achieving in the United States.

Druridge Bay, Northumberland

Mr. Beith: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if land at Druridge bay, Northumberland, owned by Nuclear Electric, is to be released for sale. [13511]

Mr. Page: The land held by Nuclear Electric at Druridge bay is to be assigned to Magnox Electric, and will therefore be staying in the public sector.

Mr. Beith: Will the Minister convey to his right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy my appreciation of the fact that he decided not to release the land to Nuclear Electric's successor, British Energy? Does he recognise, however—given the 40,000-signature petition that we took to the Department—that local people want the land to be taken entirely out of the hands of the nuclear industry? I am sure that the Minister would not want the industry to remain nationalised indefinitely, but I think that he would want it to be made clear that that will not be the site of a nuclear power station.

Mr. Page: The right hon. Gentleman has been prominent in the campaign to retain the site in the public sector. I shall pass on his good wishes to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy. The settling of the terms on which Magnox Electric will hold Druridge bay will start shortly; those working on the site will be consulted, and I hope that a satisfactory solution will be achieved.

Mr. Atkins: Does my hon. Friend recognise that the nuclear industry plays a significant part in the operation of our economy—not least in Lancashire, where British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. employs a large number of people, and has been so successful that it is about to provide 100 new jobs in the Lancashire area? That demonstrates yet again that our policies work, unlike those of the Labour party.

Mr. Page: My right hon. Friend makes the point that privatisation will be valuable to the nuclear industry, just as it has been to many other industries. I confidently


expect that there will be more jobs and expansion, and that Nuclear Electric will provide a stimulus and competition for other power generators.

Mr. Battle: Does the Minister agree that the Government's proposals to privatise the nuclear industry are increasingly being exposed as a bad deal for the taxpayer? Is this not proving to be a closing-down sale that will cost the country billions? Moreover, it cannot be assumed that a Labour Government will pick up the tab for unknown nuclear liabilities if the assets are stripped. Is not nuclear privatisation likely to prove even more disastrous than the Government's botched attempts to privatise British Rail? It is clearly not in the public interest. Will the Government call it off?

Mr. Page: I can give a short answer to that question: certainly not. We will not call off the privatisation. As I have said, I expect it to raise substantial sums for the taxpayer, and it will free the industry to make its own decisions. As for the liabilities, I know that a segregated fund will be established to ensure that long-term decommissioning liabilities will not fall on the taxpayer by default.

Gas Consumers Council

Mr. Gerrard: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received as to how this year's Gas Consumers Council budget will affect its ability to represent the interests of consumers. [13512]

Mr. John M. Taylor: I have received no such representations.

Mr. Gerrard: Is it not a fact that the Gas Consumers Council's budget is being cut at a time when the number of complaints is rising? Can the Minister explain why, since Ministers announced last May that they would work with British Gas to raise the company's performance to the highest level, it has managed to lose its charter mark, and complaints to the council have more than doubled?

Mr. Taylor: The Gas Consumers Council will not be inhibited by its budget, which for 1996–97 has been increased by more than inflation. Since privatisation, domestic gas prices have decreased by more than 23 per cent. and industrial gas prices by 40 per cent. Although the Gas Consumers Council is independent of the regulator, it keeps in close touch with the Office of Gas Supply, as it should.

Mr. Gallie: Does my hon. Friend agree that the largest cuts in the gas industry have been those for domestic gas consumers' bills since privatisation?

Mr. Taylor: I certainly do.

Balance of Trade

Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the balance of payments deficit for the calendar years 1994 and 1995. [13513]

Mr. Oppenheim: In 1994, the balance of payments deficit was 0.3 per cent. of gross domestic product. In

1995, the deficit is forecast by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be about 1 per cent. of GDP.

Mr. Williams: How can the Prime Minister claim that Britain has the strongest economy in Europe when our growth rate, at 1.8 per cent., is at eighth place in Europe and when our share of world trade, at 5.2 per cent., is the lowest this century? When we have had a devaluation of 20 or 25 per cent., why do we still have a balance of payments problem?

Mr. Oppenheim: The Prime Minister may be thinking of the fact that, whereas in the decades after the war our share of world trade slipped steadily, since the mid-1980s we have stabilised that share, when many developing countries have increased theirs. He might also be thinking of the fact that, since 1981, the volume of manufactured exports from Britain has grown faster than those from France, Germany or Japan.

Mr. Brooke: I express dismay and despair at Opposition Members' lack of understanding about why the United Kingdom's share of world trade in manufactures ceased to fall in the 1980s—for the first time since the war—and, indeed, began to rise. Does my hon. Friend endorse the research carried out by Owen and Wren Lewis recently, which showed that critical to that change is the strength of investment in United Kingdom manufacturing industry?

Mr. Oppenheim: Obviously it is a matter of not only the amount of investment but the quality of investment. What differentiates investment now compared with the 1970s is that in the 1970s a lot of investment was state inspired, state sponsored and state directed into enterprises that turned out to be uneconomic, such as building massive, unneeded capacity for British Steel. Investment now is market-directed and high quality and results in goods that we can sell abroad.

Mr. Hardy: Does the Minister deny that Britain's share of world trade is lower today than it has been throughout our history?

Mr. Oppenheim: No; in answer to an earlier question, I explained that, although Britain's share of world trade fell steadily in the decades after the war, since the mid-1980s it has stabilised. That is quite a performance when the share of other industrialised countries has fallen as a result of the increased share of developing countries.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: If the Labour party cannot recognise the hugely improved competitiveness of British industry, will my hon. Friend recognise the recent comments of the president of the German CBI, who said that, of all the countries in Europe, Britain was best placed to deal with the challenge of global competitiveness? Is that not proved by recent figures from the West Midlands development agency, which show that this country now attracts record investment? In particular, in the past year, the west midlands has seen no less than £1.25 billion-worth of investment, which has safeguarded or created no fewer than 10,000 jobs.

Mr. Oppenheim: The German gentleman to whom my hon. Friend alludes may have been aware of a recent survey


that showed that, whereas the manufacturing productivity gap with Germany widened sharply in the second half of the 1970s, since 1979 the competitiveness gap between Britain and Germany has narrowed by three quarters. That shows that the period when Britain really was in danger of becoming a low-wage, low-productivity, skivvy economy was not under the Conservative Government but in the days of Labour's heroic industrial strategy.

Mr. Hoon: As the Minister is so keen on making comparisons with the previous Labour Government, he should note that the previous Labour Government achieved a surplus in both 1977 and 1978, having turned around a deficit inherited from the Conservatives. Despite the Minister's selective use of statistics, is it not the case that, first, in 1995 the Conservatives presided over their 10th successive annual deficit in the balance of payments current account; secondly, the UK's trade balance in manufactured goods went into deficit in 1983 for the first time since the industrial revolution, and has stayed there; thirdly, the United Kingdom's share of world trade has fallen to its lowest point this century, from 7.7 per cent. in 1980 to 5.2 per cent.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] I said, "Is it not the case?" That is because, notwithstanding the Minister's historical comparisons—I am tempted to say hysterical comparisons—the United Kingdom has today fallen to 21st place in the international investment league.

Mr. Oppenheim: I think what the hon. Gentleman means is that under the last Labour Government our trade was roughly in balance in one year and in surplus in another, but that the position was rapidly deteriorating by 1979. Under the last Labour Government, our performance consistently deteriorated in every aspect of manufacturing output and productivity. We inherited the problems of that Government and Britain's performance has markedly improved in trade, manufacturing output and productivity since then. That is what the Opposition do not like.

Mr. Mans: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a direct correlation between interference in industry by countries, particularly in Europe, and a reduction in the manufacturing base, whereas countries such as ours which do not interfere increase the manufacturing base? Does he further agree that the only way in which some European countries manage to prop up their exports is by subsidising their industries and that in the long term that can result only in the demise of those industries? Will he ensure that Britain continues to follow the policy of not subsidising industry?

Mr. Oppenheim: Needless to say, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. As Opposition Members are keen on comparisons with the last Labour Government, I shall give them the example of Triumph Motorcycles. It was a world leader in the 1950s, but it was meddled with and interfered with and had appalling industrial relations in the 1970s. It went bankrupt and the Japanese took the market; but in the 1980s, under a Conservative Government, Triumph set up again and it is expanding jobs and output and exporting to Japan. That is symbolic of the difference between manufacturing then and manufacturing now.

Mr. Purchase: To ask the President of the Board of Trade with which European countries the UK has a surplus in both visible and invisible trade. [13515]

Mr. Oppenheim: In 1994, the latest year for which detailed information is available, the UK had an overall surplus, invisibles and invisibles, with the Republic of Ireland, Italy and the Netherlands.

Mr. Purchase: The Minister makes a brave attempt. According to the figures that I have seen, we have a surplus in both areas only with Ireland, which is, I think, 16th in the enlarged Community—all the countries of which, except us, enjoy the protection of the social chapter. Is it not surprising that the Minister claims that we are doing well whereas we are doing rather badly?

Mr. Oppenheim: I think that the hon. Gentleman's figures are a little out of date. As he is quite rightly concerned about our trade position, he will no doubt be delighted to know that our current account deficit with Europe is falling quite sharply. It is much lower than it was 10 years ago, and in the last year for which figures are available our exports were up by 11 per cent.-3 per cent. more than imports were up.

Mr. Butcher: Does my hon. Friend agree that the formation of a north Atlantic free trade area in which both tariff and non-tariff barriers were eliminated would be healthy for western Europe and the eastern seaboard of the United States, would boost the prospect of ports such as Glasgow, Liverpool, Bristol and Cork and would integrate western Europe in the global market and the enterprise culture? Should not that objective be pursued with great vigour by his Department? I draw his attention to the remarks of Commissioner Sir Leon Brittan, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and officials at the American Department of Commerce which all seem to open the door to the President of the Board of Trade being the champion of this cause.

Mr. Oppenheim: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If trade barriers produced industrial competitiveness, countries such as India and Brazil would be great industrial powers. It is the fact that those countries followed interventionist and protectionist policies from the end of the war until recently that has caused them great damage. I entirely agree that we need more free trade, not less, and I certainly agree that we must pursue every avenue for opening up trade with the United States.
I hope that my hon. Friend does not underestimate the difficulty caused by many of our fellow members in the EU constantly giving way to vested interests that are crying out for anti-dumping duties and trade barriers. These include occasionally the United Kingdom Commissioner—the former leader of the Labour party. Sadly, the same is true of the United States, which often speaks the language of free trade while practising just the opposite.

Mr. Clapham: Would not the use of regional selective assistance to support successful companies, such as Koyo in my constituency—whose application was turned down—assist the surplus in invisibles? Koyo came to Barnsley in 1992, and it now has a turnover of £25 million. The company wants RSA to double the size


of its factory, to increase the work force by 180 and to increase its turnover to £66 million. However, its application was turned down. Will the Minister review that decision and, in doing so, will he see a delegation from the company?

Mr. Oppenheim: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the success of inward investment in Britain, and I take seriously his point about the company in his constituency. I understand that the matter is being looked at, and if the hon. Gentleman wants to bring a delegation to the Department of Trade and Industry, we will be glad to see them.

Mr. Marlow: What would be the impact on our balance of trade with our European partners if there was a single currency in central Europe, including Germany, France and, perhaps, Belgium and Luxembourg, while the pound sterling was maintained in the United Kingdom? In particular, what would the impact be on our invisible trade with Europe?

Mr. Oppenheim: The simple answer to a complicated question is that any country unwise enough to join a single currency before the time is right would almost undoubtedly suffer from a massive loss in competitiveness.

British Geological Survey

Mr. Dafis: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the effect of the prior options review of the British Geological Survey on the progress of the geological survey of Wales. [13516]

Mr. Page: None. I expect the current review will report to me in July 1996.

Mr. Dafis: May I remind the Minister of the furore that erupted in Wales two years ago following the announcement that the BGS office for Wales in Aberystwyth was to be closed? May I remind the Minister that we were assured at the time that the so-called rationalisation would strengthen the ability of the BGS to carry on with its surveying work in Wales? In view of the fact that large areas of Wales do not have detailed geological maps, and in view of the importance of this information in such maps for economic development, the environment and planning, what guarantee can he now give that the assurances made at that time will be honoured?

Mr. Page: I, too, was disappointed that the Welsh authorities did not provide the £80,000 a year for five years to keep the Aberystwyth office operating. The purpose of the review of all public service research establishments is to see that we get the best science for the substantial resources put in by the taxpayer. Until the review reports back, however, there is little that I can say.

Manufacturing Output

Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the average annual growth in manufacturing output since 1979. [13517]

Mr. Oppenheim: Since 1979, manufacturing output has grown at an average annual rate of 0.7 per cent.

Mr. Jones: Did not the Secretary of State recently admit that the Thatcher years were a complete and utter

disaster for Britain's manufacturing industries? Is it not the case that Britain's manufacturing is not safe in Conservative hands?

Mr. Oppenheim: No, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Garnier: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the greatest successes of the Major years has been manufacturing industries in the east midlands, an area that both he and I represent? Will he also ignore all history lessons from Opposition Front Benchers, who clearly do not know the difference between Joseph and Austen Chamberlain?

Mr. Oppenheim: I think that the Opposition are misled in a variety of ways.

Gas Consumers Council

Dr. Godman: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the current effectiveness of the Gas Consumers Council's monitoring of the level of service given by the privatised utilities. [13518]

Mr. Page: I consider that the Gas Consumers Council is effective in monitoring the level of service given by British Gas.

Dr. Godman: As my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) pointed out earlier, last May Ministers promised to help British Gas to improve its service record. Why, then, has there been a doubling in the number of complaints to the Gas Consumers Council since that date? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there appears to be a "couldn't care less" attitude among senior British Gas managers to complaints from consumers? That is certainly the experience of many of my constituents. Surely that is not the right attitude to take, especially to the problems faced by our elderly constituents.

Mr. Page: I share the hon. Gentleman's disappointment that the number of complaints has risen by such a large amount. Having said that, I understand that British Gas management has responded positively and drafted in more staff and put in more telephone lines. I also understand that the rate of complaint in December was 36 per cent. lower than the rate at the start of 1995. Progress is being made.

Privatised Water Companies

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the ability of the consumer organisations covering the privatised utilities to monitor the level of service given by the privatised water companies. [13519]

Mr. John M. Taylor: In general, we are content with the existing consumer representation arrangements for the privatised utilities. As far as the water industry is concerned, the performance of the Office of Water


Services customer service committees in monitoring levels of service is a matter for the Director General of Water Services.

Mr. Campbell: The number of complaints has risen by 180 per cent. and £1 million has been cut from the national customer council. Why was Diana Scott sacked from the customer service committee in Yorkshire? Was it because she was outspoken?

Mr. Taylor: The fact is that privatisation has provided customers with independent customer service committees. Since privatisation, the national customer council has been in place to put the customer's view. It is put, it should be put and it is safeguarded.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my hon. Friend aware that my constituents have had privatised water for 15 or more years, originally through the Rickmansworth water company and now through Three Valleys Water, and that that privatised service has been highly successful? Is that not an example to other areas?

Mr. Taylor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There is a considerable variety of experience and delivery, but the best is always a good example to the rest. It is exactly that sort of good practice that we wish to spread.

Saudi Arabia (Medical Supplies)

Mr. Pickthall: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures he is taking in relation to medical exports from Diagnostic Developments of Burscough, Lancashire, sent for export to Saudi Arabia and impounded by Customs and Excise at Heathrow. [13520]

Mr. Nelson: I understand from Customs and Excise that the consignment was shipped from the United Kingdom on 25 January.

Mr. Pickthall: I am grateful for that helpful reply. Does the Minister understand that the shipment in question consisted of an agent for the determination of haemoglobin in blood supplies? It was going to Saudi Arabia and was contained in 6,500 50cc bottles at 2 per cent. of potassium cyanide. The Department of Trade and Industry official determined that the cyanide was recoverable. Is that the sort of efficiency in helping our small exporters that satisfies the Department? Before the Minister toddles off to Latin America advocating exports, will he ensure that the delays and the loss of business to which I referred are not repeated?

Mr. Nelson: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we must be careful not to inhibit proper legitimate exports. However, as the House will be aware—especially this week—we must impose proper licences and controls on the export of hazardous goods. In the case in question—and certainly when Customs and Excise had first sight of the consignment at Heathrow—it was felt that potassium cyanide very much fell into that category. It was properly referred to my Department, which made a further technical assessment and validation of the end user. When that was cleared, the goods were also cleared for shipment. Sometimes that can take some time, but it is

proper that the process should be gone through and that it should be done as expeditiously as possible—and my Department intends always so to do.

British Gas

Mr. McFall: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he next plans to meet representatives of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux to discuss problems encountered with British Gas. [13522]

Mr. John M. Taylor: I have no such plans.

Mr. McFall: At a time of record referrals to the Gas Consumers Council and to citizens advice bureaux, how can the Minister justify an overall cut to the CAB during the past two years? At a time of massive dissatisfaction with British Gas, is it not obscene that the charter mark is still on gas bills? Will the Minister take steps today to ensure that that charter mark is removed?

Mr. Taylor: Madam Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Tony Banks: It is Madam Speaker.

Mr. Taylor: Madam Speaker, I do apologise. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) was in the House during an earlier question about gas, but I am the first to concede that the number of complaints in relation to gas has increased. It is perfectly clear that British Gas must do better to retain its customer loyalty. The hon. Gentleman referred, in particular, to NACAB. This afternoon, I have been defending the customer safeguard arrangements. I must say that, in the context of NACAB, I announced a fortnight ago that its grant had been increased by £600,000 this year. As far as I could tell from my most recent visit to NACAB, the people there were very pleased about that.

Manufacturing Output

Mr. Sutcliffe: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the current figure for manufacturing as a percentage of gross domestic product. [13524]

Mr. Lang: In 1994, manufacturing output was 21 per cent. of gross domestic product.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Is that not the nub of the problem? In 1979, manufacturing represented 30 per cent. of GDP, and it is now down to less than 21 per cent. Is that decline because of the waste of resources which could have created long-term investment? Hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that we must return to increased levels of investment in manufacturing. Is not the problem that we are net exporters of investment? The Government have not created an environment in which investment can take place, which would bring back manufacturing to where it needs to be—where it could create the jobs that we need to provide employment.

Mr. Oppenheim: I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of manufacturing. However, he should be aware that the share of GDP taken


by manufacturing has fallen in every industrialised country, which, in absolute terms, does not mean that the manufacturing share has decreased. Service industries have done very well in this country, but manufacturing industry has also done well since 1980. Our manufacturing productivity growth has been at the top of the league of industrialised countries, and manufacturing output has increased since 1979. I repeat that that is in marked contrast to what happened under the previous Labour Government, when productivity was stagnant and output fell.

Mr. Bellingham: Will the Minister find time today to consider the food manufacturers in my constituency, including Campbell Soups and Master Foods, a division of Mars, which I visited on Monday? Those two companies have expanded and have played a part in reducing unemployment in my constituency, since the general election, by 32 per cent. Does he agree with me that had the Government signed up to the social chapter and brought in the panoply of regulations and red tape, as the Opposition want, that would not have happened?

Mr. Oppenheim: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the 1970s, international companies such as those he mentioned were falling over themselves to move production from England. General Motors and Ford were moving production out of England, and the Germans would not buy GM or Ford cars that were made in United Kingdom plants. The opposite is now true: GM and Ford are again exporting massive numbers of cars. The Japanese have come into the market in a very big way, and inward investment has been one of the great driving forces in the transformation of British manufacturing industry.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Is not the abysmal performance by manufacturing industry in this country due to the fact that we have not invested sufficiently, particularly in training? Is it not true that we have the lowest proportion of young people in full-time education of any industrialised country, apart from Turkey?

Mr. Oppenheim: The hon. Lady is absolutely right about the importance of education and human capital in competitiveness. She will no doubt be glad to hear that the proportion of young people who are in full-time education or training is two and a half times what it was in 1979. She will no doubt also be delighted to hear that, in the past year, manufacturing investment increased by 11.5 per cent., and that investment in machinery increased by 15.5 per cent.

Inward Investment

Mr. Jenkin: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures are being pursued to attract inward investment into the United Kingdom. [13525]

Mr. Lang: My Department's Invest in Britain Bureau runs a comprehensive programme for promoting the United Kingdom overseas, including company visits, advertising, mail shots, seminars and missions. Within the United Kingdom, the IBB is introducing a nationally co-ordinated aftercare programme for major inward investors already in this country—the international investor development programme. It is also, in conjunction with Government offices and regional agencies, strengthening regional aftercare arrangements where necessary to complement established initiatives that are already in place.

Mr. Jenkin: Is it not a fact that this country is naturally a global trading nation and that we naturally offer a warm welcome to any international company that wants to invest here? Is it not one of the greatest achievements of this Government that we have restored our reputation and standing as a global trading nation rather than as a nation mired in regulation and high taxation?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is remarkable that, with only around 1 per cent. of the world's population, we are the fifth largest trading nation. The massive advance in productivity growth and competitiveness that we have achieved in recent years has led us to break into new export markets, increase our exports to record levels and succeed in attracting more than 40 per cent. of the inward investment in the European Union from the United States and Japan.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: May we have an assurance that when the Government publish their statistics on inward investment they will not include the £58.6 million spent by Campbell Soups on acquiring a plant in my constituency which the company announced 11 weeks later would close? Surely it would be an abuse of the statistics if that sum were to be included. Is not the lesson to be learned from the whole affair the fact that we must find a way to ensure that when foreign companies that do not have a shareholder base in the United Kingdom come here—Campbell Soups is 58 per cent. owned by one family in the United States—their actions can be checked? Otherwise, they will simply undermine the regional policies of successive Governments.

Mr. Lang: Let me point out to the hon. Gentleman that last year there were no fewer than 454 inward investment successes in the United Kingdom associated with more than 91,000 jobs. Although American companies in this country are some 4,000 in number and represent $100 billion-worth of investment, it should be borne in mind that the United Kingdom is one of the strongest outward investors in the world and, indeed, has higher investments in terms of value in the United States than the United States has here.

Points of Order

Ms Harriet Harman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In Health questions yesterday I accused the Secretary of State of misleading the House. I unreservedly withdraw the term "misled" as unparliamentary, and I apologise to him and to you.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: I will take no further points of order on that matter. The hon. Lady has done the right thing, and I am obliged to her.

Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise for not being here when my question was called, but something important has occurred relating to Question 6, in which I declared an interest. Despite having checked the form and confirmed with the Table Office that it showed that an interest had been declared, the letter "R" has not appeared next to the question. As you will know, I have several times mentioned the fact that Opposition Members sponsored by trade unions are not declaring that interest, but perhaps they are doing so and the "R" is not being printed.

Madam Speaker: I do not think that that is the case. On this occasion, the printers regret that there was a lapse, but I take the view that it is always prudent for hon. Members to check the text of their questions when they first appear on the Order Paper. It is a courtesy that hon. Members should be here to ask their questions.

Mr. Alan Duncan: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have just noted that the Official Report covering the late-night Division on Monday on the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993 records that two Labour Front-Bench spokesmen went through the No Lobby. I am concerned that it might be a mistake because, had they done so, they would be in breach of collective responsibility. They will have voted against the Maastricht treaty provisions and have no choice but to resign. Will you arrange for checks to be made to see whether the record is accurate?

Madam Speaker: It is none of the Speaker's business and, as far as I am concerned, the report is correct.

Mr. Stephen Timms: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Newham general hospital last month issued a remarkable press release attacking the

cuts that it was being forced to make as a result of reductions in Government funding. In that context, is it in order for the Secretary of State for Health to be claiming improvements in services at that hospital?

Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order. It is a question and the hon. Gentleman must find an opportunity to raise it in debate.

Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware that during Question Time, an hon. Lady, whom I will not name, crossed in front of—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I have informed the Whips on many occasions that Members should not enter the Chamber and cross the line of sight between a Minister and the Member whose question he is answering. Members who are sitting in the Chamber and know whose question the Minister is answering should be helpful to Members entering the Chamber by holding them back, as they could have on the occasion to which the hon. Member referred. I watched very carefully and, frankly, Members were not as helpful as they could have been.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In Health questions yesterday, the Secretary of State said that hospitals had opened extra beds. On checking, we found that they had not. How can we get the Secretary of State to explain that from the Dispatch Box?

Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order. As I explained to the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms), such questions are for political argument in debate. The hon. Lady may care to table questions on the matter or raise it at some stage on the Adjournment.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) did not tell you the whole story when he raised his point of order. The House should be informed. The hour-and-a-half debate on convergence criteria was taken up for the most part by the Conservative Euro-sceptics; the ones who are always blathering about the Common Market, but do very little about it. It is true that when the House divided at the end of the debate, two Labour Front-Bench spokesmen went into the No Lobby faster than me. The Euro-rebels were nowhere near. That is no surprise because Tory Governments took us into the Common Market, got us into the Single European Act and took us through the Maastricht treaty that Labour voted against. We were consistent on Monday night.

Bull Bars (Prohibition)

Mr. Paul Flynn: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the prohibition of the use on roads of motor vehicles fitted with bull bars; and for other related purposes.
A year ago there was a terrible accident on the M4, in which a coach crashed and nine people died. The House was shocked and we sought solutions. The Bill is concerned with not nine deaths but—probably—70 deaths, according to figures calculated by the Royal Automobile Club. Those deaths were as a result of not accidents but avoidable tragedies. People are killed because of the special nature of bull bars—rigid objects on the front of cars at the level of a child's head or vital organs, which concentrate and multiply the force of accidents
I am reminded of the way in which the stiletto heel syndrome surprised us in the early 1950s, when holes suddenly appeared in dance halls that had withstood the rigours of dancing for many years. It was discovered that seven-stone ladies pirouetting on stiletto heels became the weight of a fully grown elephant.
The same thing happens when the tiny circumference of a bull bar hits a child's head. Researchers in Germany have proved that if a bull bar on a vehicle travelling as slowly as 12 miles an hour hits a child, the child will certainly die.
Practically every authority—the Automobile Association, the RAC, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, the Pedestrians Association, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Child Accident Prevention Trust—and anyone with an independent view has condemned bull bars. Some insurance organisations are refusing to insure vehicles with bull bars and others are loading the premiums. All the research scientists who have studied bull bars in Australia, New Zealand, Britain—the most prestigious of all—and Germany have all come out with the same cry of alarm, that bull bars and the solid fronts of vehicles have set the cause of safety back 20 years.
One of the main reasons why the accident rate has been reduced is that crumple zones that absorb the shock of an impact have been developed for cars. It is a myth to believe, as many seem to, that those sitting in cars fitted with bull bars are somehow better protected. They are not. They are, in fact, at greater risk because they themselves are subjected to the force of a collision. They are not cushioned from it by the crumple zone. The only research done on that was in Australia and it shows that if the bars deform in an accident, the driver and any pedestrian involved often suffer serious upper-body injuries.
Progress has been made in the past year. A lady whose name I cannot mention because it is forbidden under our Standing Orders has ordered the removal of bars from all the vehicles in the royal parks. Rather less prestigious but influential people such as Anneka Rice and Roger Cook, who set a bad example in their programmes, have vowed that they will never be filmed again with bull bars on their cars. Hon. Members have reacted splendidly. We can now say with pride that a year ago 20 vehicles in our car park were fitted with bull bars, but in the past six weeks we have become an entirely bull bar-free zone.
There are apologists for bull bars. The manufacturers we can understand. They are speaking on behalf of their products and on behalf of jobs. But they are in a market that is in an inevitable decline and they should diversify into products that increase rather than reduce safety.
Owners of vans often claim that they need such bars because the design of the front of the vehicle leaves them exposed. If that were so, such vehicles would be dangerous and should not be on the roads. However, van drivers have few accidents as a result of such design features. But even if they did, to destroy the crumple zone that absorbs the shock adds to their own dangers. It is not acceptable for drivers to reduce a perceived risk to themselves by increasing the risk to others.
Along with other members of the Select Committee on Transport, I met members of the European Commission yesterday. They were emphatic about their determination to provide a solution. Progress is being delayed because of objections from Finland and Sweden similar to those put forward in Australia. The reason is odd. Australia was worried about kangaroos and Finland and Sweden are worried about reindeer. They call them moose bars. Australia's solution was to have what is called, believe it or not, a shoo-roo—a sound device. The nordic areas need a shoo-moose. There are solutions. In country areas where bull bars are necessary, it is a simple matter to make them demountable.
Our job today is to propel the issue to the top of the agenda. We know how the country and the House react to avoidable tragedies. It is a matter of grief to us that a year ago when the House discussed the matter, all agreed—the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris), who is on the Front Bench and every speaker—that bull bars are a fashion accessory, serve no practical purpose and are responsible for at least 70 deaths a year and many hundreds of casualties.
Tragically, nothing has happened since. We can see the issue better, not in terms of physics or statistics, but in terms of human tragedies. The worst tragedy that can affect any of us is the loss of a child. In Melksham, on the last day of term in July, Helen Bags was excited as she ran home from school, and she ran across a road and in front of a Land Rover. According to the doctors and the coroner who examined Helen, her death was attributable to the bull bar attached to the car. Her injuries were on her upper body and lungs. She lived for a number of days after the accident but, tragically, she died. The life of the 10-year-old was destroyed because someone chose to have a bull bar on his car.
Mrs. Ann Bags, Helen's mother—who has energetically campaigned against bull bars since her death—does not blame the driver of the car. However, she blames those of us in this place who have reacted rapidly to introduce legislation after other deaths, such as that of Leah Betts, and to incidents involving children who were attacked by dogs.
Hon. Members have had a great deal of time to consider this legislation. There are at least three ways in which the House can act and use existing legislation to institute a ban on bull bars. If we had acted last year, Helen Bags would still be alive. When one drives, one does not expect to be involved in a collision or to hit a child. However, it can happen to any of us at any time.
If a bull bar is fitted to a car, it is more likely that a trivial accident will become a serious accident, and that a serious accident will become a death. Bull bars change ordinary vehicles into child-killing machines. They serve no purpose—they are silly, macho, fashion accessories. People are being killed in the name of fashion.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Paul Flynn, Mr. Jon Owen Jones, Mr. Richard Spring, Ms Jean Corston, Mr. Michael Fabricant, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. John Home Robertson, Mr. Nick Ainger, Mr. Andrew Miller and Mr. David Hanson.

BULL BARS (PROHIBITION)

Mr. Paul Flynn accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the prohibition of the use on roads of motor vehicles fitted with bull bars; and for other related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 29 March and to be printed. [Bill 60.]

Orders of the Day — Security Service Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New clause 1

POWERS OF POLICE COMPLAINTS AUTHORITY

'.—(1) Nothing in this Act shall preclude or limit investigations by the Police Complaints Authority in respect of any actions undertaken by or on behalf of police officers in pursuit of activities authorised by this Act.

(2) It shall be the duty of the Police Complaints Authority to ensure that any complaint duly made to it by any person in respect of activities carried out in support of the police under the provisions of this Act by officers of the Security Service is forwarded for investigation by the Tribunal appointed under the Security Service Act 1989, which shall report to the Police Complaints Authority on the conclusions of any such investigation.'.—[Mr. Beith.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I question whether we should proceed with this Bill and the new clauses and amendments today in the aftermath of Friday's terrible bombing. I do not want terrorists to imagine that there will be any let-up in the security and intelligence efforts directed against them; nor do I want the public to feel that there will be any transfer of resources to the detriment of the fight against terrorism, upon which they depend for their protection. If there is any resource or manpower in the security service which could be effectively used to reduce the risk of further bombing being carried out, it must be used.

Mr. David Winnick: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the situation has undoubtedly changed since Second Reading and the Committee stage, in which we both took part? At this stage we do not know whether the tragic bombing of last Friday is a one-off or whether terrorism will be renewed on a sustained basis. In those circumstances, would it not be better for this Bill to be delayed until we know whether the IRA intends to continue its terrorist campaign against this country?

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman anticipates what I was about to say, which is that that was the argument I put to the Prime Minister and the Minister of State in an exchange on the wireless yesterday. It is open to the Government to let the Bill proceed to the statute book, suitably amended, and not to bring it into practical effect. I suspect that that is what may happen if any of the resources are needed in the fight against terrorism.
There are still some problems with the Bill with which the new clause attempts to deal and, because of that, it would have been advantageous to proceed in that way. There is less of a rush to put on the statute book the facility to deal with organised crime if the resources may be needed to deal with terrorism in the mean time.
We are talking about relatively few people. It has been argued during discussions on the Bill that only about 15 people may be effectively transferred from security work to work against organised crime. Nobody should imagine


that we are talking about large numbers. However, it would have been advantageous in improving the Bill if we had not proceeded today and, at the same time, it would have given a clear signal to terrorists and the public that there will be no let-up in the efforts against terrorism. The Government came to a different conclusion, so it is right to try to ensure that the Bill is in the form that it should be. The new clause is directed precisely to that effect.
The new clause illustrates a number of respects in which the Bill does not relate properly to the existing work and structures of the police. The new clause relates to the police complaints machinery. The nature of the problem is illustrated when one realises that the National Criminal Intelligence Service, which is a police agency—although it is run by the Home Office by a chief constable seconded for the purpose—does not exist in statute. The Government have already had to resort to a formula to refer to the National Criminal Intelligence Service. They have had to incorporate an amendment which refers to "a chief constable", it being understood that that chief constable would be the head of the National Criminal Intelligence Service. It is one of the results of proceeding with the Bill without first sorting out the national structures and arrangements of the police service. It is one of the things that could have been done if progress on the Bill had been deferred.
In response to the intervention from the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), I must say that it would be unwise to assume that what happened on Friday was a one-off event. I am sure that all the security organisations—the police, the Army and the security services—are working and must work on the assumption that there are terrorists waiting to strike with further atrocities at any time. It is on that basis that we should all conduct our security arrangements.
On Second Reading we tabled a reasoned amendment which specified a number of respects in which we thought that the Bill was seriously deficient and should be put right. We argued that it must make express provision for the police to retain the lead in the fight against crime. We argued that the activities of the Security Service in that area should be subject to police authorisation and that there should be a new and uniform system of warrants to control interventions on property by either the Security Service or the police. We argued for clear arrangements for the national co-ordination of the police and Security Service and for clear arrangements for accountability and the consideration of complaints by the public. There were four points of criticism.
It is unusual to be able to say that two of those points were met in Committee. I recognise that the Government have responded to those criticisms and that the Bill has been improved significantly. However, two points of criticism remain and they both fall to be considered. One is the issue of warrants and the other is covered by the new clause, which is how the public can complain.
There is already an established machinery for complaints against the police. Not everybody is satisfied with it, but it is in extensive use and is provided for in statute. It is based on the existence of a Police Complaints Authority which supervises investigations carried out by police forces.
There is a different system for complaints against the Security Service, which involves a tribunal and a commissioner. There has been no attempt so far during discussions on the Bill to explain how those provisions can be matched up or how they will relate to each other.
Justice, the well-known human rights organisation run by eminent lawyers, said in its representations:
A complaint against the security service is dealt with by a closed tribunal hearing that gives no reasons for its decision and is statutorily exempt from judicial review proceedings. By contrast, a complaint against the police is dealt with by the Police Complaints Authority which results in a public report with reasons and may be subject to judicial review proceedings.
As importantly, police officers may be sued for damages for illegal conduct and abuse of their powers. This form of judicial redress will not be available to victims of misconduct by security service officials.
How are we to match those two systems or ensure that the general public know to whom to complain when they find that some action by the Security Service, in pursuit of this legislation, results in damage or harm, whether through carelessness, abuse of power or excess of zeal?
The position is further complicated by the fact that the Security Service's main partner in dealing with organised crime—the body that will task it—is the National Criminal Intelligence Service. It is staffed by police officers, but a police officer, while at the National Criminal Intelligence Service, is not subject to Police Complaints Authority procedure. If a complaint is made as a result of an action taken by an officer who is working at the National Criminal Intelligence Service, he has to be sent back to the force from which he was seconded. Action can take place there and the Police Complaints Authority can become involved. The situation of NCIS is not entirely satisfactory and is complicated to manage.
What will happen if, in a joint operation against organised crime involving the police, NCIS and the Security Service, something goes wrong? A member of the public may be adversely affected, or believe that he has been adversely affected, and so make a complaint. Perhaps that person will go to the Police Complaints Authority. The authority will say, "Oh well, the individual concerned was not a police officer. He may have been a member of the Security Service, in which case you may have to make a complaint using the Security Service Tribunal and the Security Service Commissioner." But the member of the public may be completely unaware. He may just assume that the person concerned is a police officer and he will not know where to go.
That assumption is even more likely if the Security Service uses police cover to avoid identification of its personnel. It is in the nature of the Security Service that it cannot have its personnel readily identified because otherwise its ability to do a wide range of its important work would be fatally compromised. The Security Service might not be at all anxious for it to be known that one of the personnel involved in the operation is "one of theirs". That will not be apparent to the general public who will not, therefore, have obvious recourse to a proper complaints procedure.
The ultimate complication would be to have in one and the same operation, as is quite likely to happen, police officers from a local force, somebody who has been seconded to the National Criminal Intelligence Service and somebody from the Security Service. The complaint may land on the desk of the Police Complaints Authority,


which may say, "We have a complicated situation here. We shall have to pass on the complaint against the Security Service chap to the Security Service Tribunal. We will institute complaint procedures, involving the chief constable of the force concerned, in the case of the local police force officers. We shall have to get the head of NCIS to send its man back to his force, wherever that is, to get an investigation instigated there." At that stage, it may not even be clear which of the officers concerned is properly the subject of complaint. The whole mechanism will have to be cranked into action in all three directions even though only one of the officers involved may appropriately be the subject of investigation.
The system is extremely untidy and does not adequately protect the public. I do not think that I am disclosing anything to Ministers by saying that the Police Complaints Authority does not know quite how complaints will be handled and is far from comfortable with the proposed system.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: If Security Service officials, acting under the instructions of the chief constable, misbehave in some way, cannot a complaint be levelled against the chief constable, given that he is responsible for those officials?

Mr. Beith: Not in those circumstances. The Security Service officials will not act under the direction of a chief constable. They will act under the Director-General of the Security Service, carrying out a function that the National Criminal Intelligence Service has agreed can be carried out. It is hoped that under the proposed arrangements, NCIS will have alerted the chief constable of the area concerned, if it is feasible to do so and if it is not an operation that involves many force areas, with people moving about quickly. It will not, however, be directly under the direction of any chief constable of any region. That route to complaining and accountability will, as I understand the Bill, not be available.

Mr. Robin Corbett: The right hon. Gentleman seems to suggest that Security Service personnel involved under the instruction of the police in these activities would act in similar ways to police officers. We were told by the Home Secretary and others in Committee that, in the battle against organised crime, those personnel would bring skills—in desk analysis, intelligence and all the rest of it—that were not widely available to the police. Does he envisage that a large number of Security Service personnel will be involved in what we might more properly describe as normal policing operations with regard to organised crime?

4 pm

Mr. Beith: No, but that does not mean that Security Service personnel will not be involved in situations that also involve police officers and that could give rise to a complaint. That could happen in a wide variety of circumstances. They include eavesdropping activity, in which both Security Service and police personnel were present, and similar activity undertaken as part of an inquiry agreed with the police but where the police were not present. There has been speculation in the press that,

in some circumstances, the Security Service might seek to destabilise some criminal conspiracy. People familiar with police complaints procedure have suggested to me that that could easily generate complaints to the Police Complaints Authority which would turn out to be more appropriate to the Security Service tribunal. Is there some risk that the complaint will fall between the two and will not be adequately investigated?
Under the Bill, Security Service personnel will not arrest people or undertake such normal police operations, but many sorts of complaint can arise from the other level of work in which they would be involved—even analysis. An individual might wish to complain if information were being gathered and put together in a way that, because of its incompetence and carelessness, was seriously damaging to him. That could lead to questions at his place of work and many problems when the operation became known, even though it was a mistake—the individual had nothing to do with it. At no level can we preclude the possibility of a complaint being made. At some levels complaints are likely to take place.
We must get this matter right. The Bill does not deal with it properly. I hope that the Government will give some careful thought to how the issues can be resolved, not least so that the Police Complaints Authority and the Security Service Tribunal have some guidance on how to approach the matter. The Bill's provisions may initially involve a small number of people, but it introduces a significant change from a system in which policing activity is undertaken only by accountable police forces, with a structure of discipline and accountability and a well-known procedure for complaints.
Into that world, especially in relation to organised crime, will come a small element of an organisation that, because of the nature of much of its work in fighting terrorism and foreign intelligence, must operate in secret. Some public protections surround that organisation too, but they are not the same and they were not designed to cover the circumstances that arise in dealing with crime and with the greater contact with the public that such activities against crime could bring about.
We cannot put such a Bill on the statute book without ensuring that there is proper accountability and a proper procedure for the public's complaints to be dealt with in a fair and efficient way. So far, that has not been done.

Mr. Alun Michael: I am sorry that I cannot agree with the suggestions of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). In proposing that the Bill should be set aside, he gave the reason why we supported the Bill in the first place. We believe that resources need to remain available for the fight against terrorism, but we all hope that peace will prevail.
Being able to move resources from terrorism to crime, and back again if circumstances so require, is just the way to create the necessary flexibility. We should certainly give out no signal that the resources to defeat terrorism will be moved away; nor should we give the slightest succour to those who hope that peace has ended by abandoning this Bill. We need to make sure that the lines between the usual work of MI5 and its work in support of the police are clearly drawn. Moving precipitately in either direction would be to risk the very dangers of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke.
We dealt with a number of serious issues in Committee, and it is fair to say that we made considerable progress there. There was agreement on the central role of the police in setting the tasks for the Security Service. Although a definition in law is difficult, we agreed that we were all in favour of using the Security Service to deal with serious and organised crime. The problem resembles that of the elephant: it is easy to recognise but difficult to define. Thirdly, we were very keen on putting systems in place to guarantee transparency and accountability.
It became clear in Committee that hon. Members shared a common will to make progress. In some debates, it was clear that we shared a common aspiration but experienced some difficulty in giving legislative form to the precise definitions that we wanted. Such flexibility led to the introduction of this piece of legislation in the first place. This place was shown at its best during our Committee debates; Members tried to come up with solutions, not problems. Sometimes the Opposition merely point out problems in Government legislation, and the Government content themselves with giving reasons why they will not accept our amendments. But this was an unusual case. We hope that some of the issues will be given further clarification today, on the record in Hansard; I am content to record the fact that our debates in Committee were healthy and positive.
With only minor modifications, the Minister accepted Labour's proposed mechanism to ensure that a chief officer of police sets the task, agrees the system and in effects acts as the guardian at the gate—an important step forward. So, too, is the understanding that the resources of the Security Service are to be used only in respect of what we would all recognise as serious, organised crime.
Another issue that we raised concerned accountability and how complaints should be dealt with. The Security Service has a separate system for dealing with complaints. It cannot by any stretch of the imagination be described as transparent in the way that the police complaints system can be. I hasten to add that I do not regard the police complaints system as wholly satisfactory. Like most constituency Members, I regard it with something of a jaundiced eye. Still, it is transparent and accountable, and this House is ultimately responsible for it.
I am not sure that the mechanism suggested in the new clause is the right one. In Committee, we suggested other ways of dealing with accountability procedures. They might be dealt with by the House at an appropriate stage, so that the Home Secretary and others concerned with these issues can learn from the experience, instead of having to judge everything in advance. It is certainly important to give members of the public who want a complaint investigated a way of having it investigated in a manner that is not obscure or closed to them.
I therefore hope that, in response to our debates, here and in Committee, the Minister will be willing to assure us that the Government intend to enable proper complaints to be properly investigated. I hope, too, that these matters will be kept under review, and that a means of keeping the House informed will be searched for and found.

Dr. Godman: I promise to be brief. Unfortunately, I did not receive an invitation to serve on the Committee.

Mr. Michael: We missed my hon. Friend.

Dr. Godman: I am sure that I was deeply missed, especially by the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Penrith and the Border (Mr. Maclean).
I have considerable sympathy for new clause 1. I have spoken to a couple of senior police officers about the need for assistance from MI5 in the pursuit of serious criminals. I regret to say that in the west of Scotland there are a few individuals who actively engage in trafficking arms to Northern Ireland. When I was a member of the review committee at Edinburgh prison at Saughton, I interviewed in a period of six months three men who were being assessed for parole and had been gaoled for running munitions to Northern Ireland. They had rightly received heavy sentences.
At a recent High Court hearing in Scotland, a prominent member of a loyalist paramilitary organisation, who will be known to some hon. Members, was rightly gaoled for 10 years for trafficking in arms. The Strathclyde police force job did an excellent job in tracking him and his henchmen down and bringing them to the High Court. The police officers to whom I have spoken would welcome any assistance from intelligence officers in tracking down criminals of that sort.
At the same time, how can innocent people make what they and perhaps their legal advisers believe to be legitimate complaints against harassment by intelligence officers, however laudable their objectives in tracking down criminals, especially of the sort that I have described? The rights of individuals who may, through mistaken identity, suffer harassment by intelligence officers are important. What redress do they have? What grievance procedure is there through which to pursue a legitimate complaint against such harassment? The Minister must come to the Dispatch Box and answer that question.
I am four square behind the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) in saying that, especially with the crimes to which I have referred, police should be assisted by intelligence officers where appropriate. However, such investigations must be always under the command of the appropriate chief constable.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): This has been a short but important debate. Let me make it clear from the outset that the bomb in London docklands was a cowardly and outrageous act, and that the search for peace in Northern Ireland must and will go on, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear.
The resumption of terrorist violence has implications for the Security Service, which will have to allocate its resources in the light of the demands that are placed upon it. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary made it clear on Second Reading that the Security Service's serious crime work would depend on resources being available for it. It is essential that the service retains the flexibility to respond to sudden demands in respect of any of its functions. The Government still believe that this measure should be enacted. There has been agreement that organised crime is a menace to society.
There has been agreement that the Security Service can bring valuable skills to bear in combating that menace, in support of the law enforcement agencies. The resources that the service will be able to devote to its new function


will depend on a variety of factors, but I think that it would be wrong for us to deny ourselves the option of using the service's capability against serious crime as and when it can make a contribution.
4.15 pm
The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) spoke of the signal that could be given. We can certainly give a signal, as we have over the past few days, that no stone will be left unturned in the search for those responsible for last Friday's outrage. The Security Service will continue to do all that it can to bear down on terrorism. I would be worried about the signal that would be given if we did not proceed with the Bill, which has been programmed into the parliamentary calendar.
The IRA has already given a signal that it is afraid of the ballot box and of elections. The House of Commons works on the basis of the ballot box and elections. The Bill has received all-party support, has proceeded through Committee smoothly with all-party support and was scheduled to proceed through its remaining stages today. I fear that, if we abandoned it today because one bomb went off in London on Friday night, we would send a message that the IRA commanded the House's agenda, rather than elected Members of Parliament.

Mr. Winnick: Surely it would not be giving in to the IRA any more than we have in the past 25 years to say, in effect, that the intelligence and security services should always be willing to devote all their energies, as circumstances demand, to fighting terrorism. Such action would in no way conflict with the attempt to continue the peace process in Northern Ireland—far from it—but the fact remains that the position has changed somewhat since the period of the ceasefire. We do not know whether the IRA intends to continue a sustained campaign of murder and atrocities. In those circumstances, most people would think it sensible for all the energies of the Security Service to be used to fight terrorism.

Mr. Maclean: I thought that I had made it clear that the energies of the Security Service have been, are being and will continue to be used to combat terrorism. The hon. Gentleman seems to be labouring under a misapprehension. If the Bill would involve a huge transfer of resources from the Security Service into the handling of organised crime—resources that would then not be available to combat terrorism—I would agree with him, but that is not the case.

Mr. Winnick: I did not say that.

Mr. Maclean: That is how I interpreted the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I am not trying to put words into his mouth. Let me reassure him that it is perfectly safe for us to proceed with the Bill, on the basis that the Security Service has valuable resources. Although some of those resources could be used to fight organised crime, that would not deflect the Security Service from its leading role in combating terrorism.
I appreciate that new clause 1 stems from a desire for greater public accountability in the operation of the Security Service. That wish is understandable, but it

would be a mistake to assume that, just because the Security Service will be acting in support of the police—as well as other law enforcement agencies—the same systems of accountability should apply to both bodies.

Sir Irvine Patnick: The Association of Chief Police Officers raised five key points in a paper which has, I believe, been circulated. I shall not go into the details, but will my right hon. Friend assure me that he has taken them into consideration?

Mr. Maclean: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. I believe that he is referring to the five key principles that were the basis of the agreement between the police and other law enforcement agencies and the Security Service. We have stated publicly—and I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has said it in the House—that those five key principles have been taken into account, and amendments that we made in Committee have ensured that they are incorporated in the Bill even more explicitly.
I consider the new clause misguided, because it attempts to graft part of the accountability arrangements for police officers on to members of the Security Service. The Police Complaints Authority can investigate only complaints against police officers; the Security Service Tribunal can investigate only complaints against members of the Security Service. Those procedures work very well in their separate contexts. The procedures of the tribunal are carefully tailored to provide rigorous, independent oversight without compromising the service's operational effectiveness by revealing sensitive information, or, indeed, by revealing whether the service has been involved, where that is not necessary.
Any person—this will be of interest to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman)—can complain to the tribunal about anything that he or she believes the Security Service has done to that person or to his or her property. That person can be an individual or an organisation, and a complaint about a person's property may include the place where he or she resides or works. Any complaint that is not trivial or vexatious will be examined. For complaints relating to action against property, the tribunal will involve the commissioner. The tribunal and commissioner have full powers to call on any official documents or information that they may need. All members of the tribunal are senior members of the legal profession. That is an important safeguard and it should not be taken lightly.

Dr. Godman: rose—

Mr. Chris Mullin: rose—

Mr. Maclean: I give way first to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow.

Dr. Godman: I am grateful to the Minister for showing his characteristic courtesy to me. He knows that my experience of tribunals relates to social security and medical tribunals. If there is a right of appeal against the tribunal's decision, how many cases were upheld in recent times?

Mr. Maclean: There is no right of appeal against the tribunal's decision. It was set up to be the final court of appeal in investigating these matters. The number of cases is on record, and I shall need to refresh my memory of it.
I now give way to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin).

Mr. Mullin: Further to the point that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), will the Minister remind the House, so that we may know how seriously we should take the tribunal, how many complaints the tribunal upheld?

Mr. Maclean: The tribunal has not upheld any complaints of abuse by the Security Service. That is testimony to the fact that the Security Service has behaved properly, and the tribunal has not found any cause for complaint. It seems that the hon. Gentleman and I reach different conclusions from that fact. He obviously thinks that there is some cause to see something sinister or to suspect. It is a cause of pride that the machinery has worked well.
What of operations when the Security Service is acting in support of the police? It is not a new development for the service to be working closely with law enforcement agencies. That already happens under the service's existing functions, particularly in relation to counter-terrorism, counter-proliferation and counter-espionage. There is no reason, therefore, why new disciplinary procedures should be introduced for the service's new function. It would not be sensible for members of the service to be subject to different disciplinary procedures for work under different functions when the distinction between, for example, terrorism and organised crime may be extremely blurred. Furthermore, if a different procedure came into play in relation to a particular function, that could be exploited to reveal information about the basis for the service's inquiries into a particular target.
It may help hon. Members if we consider what will happen in practice. If a potential complainant suspects the involvement of the Security Service, he or she can complain direct to the tribunal. That is the same as now and the procedure is straightforward. I assume that it is more likely that the complainant will not know where to direct his or her complaint. In those circumstances, the complainant is most likely to go to the police. If the complaint consists of an alleged criminal offence, the police are the appropriate point of contact. Members of the Security Service are subject to the law, and if a criminal offence has been committed, the police will investigate.
I accept that it is difficult to think of a scenario in which the Security Service will be so up front that a complaint is likely, but if, say, misconduct occurs during surveillance—for example, assault—the police will record a complaint relating to the conduct of the operation and will then investigate. As I said, members of the Security Service are not above the law.
Every police force in the country has been sent a leaflet explaining the role of the tribunal and has been provided with forms to submit complaints. The tribunal intends to revise its leaflet to take account of the present Bill and to reissue it to every force.

Mr. Beith: I thank the Minister for making that clear. He is dealing with precisely the situation that worries me. If somebody complains to a police force and is unaware that the Security Service is involved and it becomes clear

to the police that it was a Security Service matter, will the police tell the complainant that the Security Service is involved and direct him to the tribunal? What will the police response be and how will the complainant know what is happening to his complaint?

Mr. Maclean: As I understand the present position, the police will investigate. If the matter does not concern a police officer, the police will inform the person that there is no case to answer in the context of any of their people and will give the complainant the leaflet that I described, pointing him in the direction of other sources to which he can make a complaint.

Mr. Beith: This is a crucial issue. Does that mean that the police will disclose to the complainant, although they might not wish to do it, that the Security Service was involved in the operation? When they tell the complainant that a police officer was not involved, will they give him any idea at all of the person to whom he should complain?

Mr. Maclean: I understand that that would not be the usual procedure. It is difficult to deal with individual circumstances and hypothetical cases. In all operations, it is important to protect the integrity of the Security Service, but at the same time the police have a duty to use the complaints machinery. The solution that has been adopted of the Security Service designing new information leaflets for every police force in the country, one of which will be given to a complainant who has drawn a blank against a police officer, should be sufficient to ensure that nobody comes up against a brick wall. Currently, people have a right to complain to the Security Service Tribunal and they can complain to the Police Complaints Authority. Those two separate avenues will continue. Whether in the context of terrorism at the moment or of organised crime operations in future, any person with a complaint will still have the same two avenues.

Mr. Jack Straw: I am following the right hon. Gentleman's argument with care. I understand, as I think does the House, that it would not be consistent with practice for the name of a Security Service officer to be given to a complainant. I should like this to be clear. Is the Minister saying that, if there was a joint operation in the unusual circumstances that he describes and the police were satisfied that a complaint did not relate to their officers, information would be given to the complainant in the form of the leaflet, which palpably draws the attention of the complainant to the fact that the complaint, if it is to be directed at anybody, is to be directed at members, albeit unnamed, of the Security Service? That must be the implication of giving a complainant the leaflet that the Minister describes.

Mr. Maclean: The leaflet not only contains information on the Security Service Tribunal but deals with the tribunals that were established under the Interception of Communications Act 1985 and the Intelligence Services Act 1994. The complainant is given a comprehensive list of alternative avenues for possible complaint. The end result is that a complainant is not left without someone to complain to. He may not be happy with the outcome, just as some people are not happy with the Police Complaints Authority procedure or with


Security Service Tribunal procedures. Nevertheless, the aggrieved complainant will not fall through a net because of a joint operation.

Mr. Jim Cousins: Does the Minister regard the police as having a duty to hand over the forms without explanation, or is there simply a possibility of them doing that? As he rightly says, such action would lead the complainant to a likely conclusion.

Mr. Maclean: I would regard that as a duty. If someone comes to the police with a complaint, they have a duty to investigate it unless it is totally frivolous or vexatious. If mechanisms such as the Security Service Tribunal and others have been set up, the police have a duty to pass on the relevant information to the complainant.

Mr. Corbett: This is a serious matter, and the Minister is taking it seriously. The new clause envisages that other agencies apart from the Security Service could be involved. What happens when a complainant thinks that the Security Service was involved in an incident, but finds out that it was in fact Customs and Excise? Will there be a leaflet listing that service as one of the options? Such a situation could arise in drugs cases, for example.

Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, and I shall certainly consider that possibility. The police may find it helpful to ensure that any complainant who is not their direct responsibility has sufficient information on all possible avenues. It may be that Customs and Excise is already producing a leaflet, but I shall certainly look into that. I see no harm in taking on board the hon. Gentleman's suggestion—if that has not already been done—as it fits in with the principle that I described. If the police are unable to go further because it was not one of their officers, they can issue sufficient leaflets to point complainants in the appropriate direction.
4.30 pm
The process that I have described is not dissimilar to the standard procedure for complaints against police officers. Complaints must be submitted in the first instance to the local police force. If it is the responsibility of the chief officer to investigate the complaint, he must decide with reference to statutory guidelines whether the complaint should be referred to the Police Complaints Authority for supervision of the investigation. Only then does the PCA become involved.
To sum up, the PCA and the Security Service Tribunal have extremely important roles to play, but they carry out their roles in different ways that are appropriate to the organisations that they oversee. The accountability arrangements for the Security Service inevitably have to take some account of the organisation's need for secrecy, while ensuring that members of the public are protected. Similarly, the unique powers granted to police officers require appropriate controls to ensure that they are not abused. I believe that the present methods for dealing with complaints are sufficient, and I do not believe that we should confuse the two by attempting to amalgamate

them. While I listened carefully to what the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said, I am afraid that I was not convinced by it.

Mr. Beith: I am sorry that the Minister does not think that the new clause would be a good way of dealing with the problem, and I would submit that it does not do as he suggested. The new clause does not provide an alternative system of discipline, nor does it amalgamate the two procedures. It simply asserts that the existing procedures of the Police Complaints Authority are unaffected in so far as they relate to anything done by police officers under the Bill. I take it that he confirmed in his reply that that was the case, and that he feels that that part of the new clause may be unnecessary.
The new clause goes on to provide a mechanism by which the PCA would pass on complaints to be dealt with by the Security Service mechanisms if a matter turned out to involve a Security Service officer. A report would be produced so that the complainant could see that the complaint had been attended to. The new clause does not make it clear what the body then has to tell the complainant, and that leads us into a difficulty to which I shall come.
The Minister focused precisely on a situation about which I am more than a little concerned. The complainant, having assumed that the police were responsible—accidentally, or because of carelessness or excessive zeal—for disrupting his home, causing his suitability for employment to be put into question or physically interfering with him in some way during an operation makes a complaint to the police machinery. He may suspect that there has been Security Service involvement or he may not; but it turns out that Security Service personnel were involved, and the police reply to him that no police officer was found in the investigation to have been involved in what went wrong. "Here is a leaflet," they will say, "which may be of assistance to you."
It is the practice not to identify the involvement of the Security Service in an operation in order to protect its activities. I understand that, and that makes me somewhat sympathetic to what the Minister is saying. But, perversely, that is precisely the effect achieved. When a complainant receives a leaflet, he will wonder why it has been sent to him. If no police officer was involved, his complaint must be sent to the Security Service Tribunal.
The only answer to this problem—as suggested by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett)—is for the Minister to ensure that not just one leaflet is sent, but several. There will be a selection of leaflets on the Security Service machinery, Customs and Excise—which, incidentally, does not have any machinery for complaints against its officers—the Inland Revenue, the General Synod of the Church of England, the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland and just about anybody else. The complainant will be told, "Sift through these and you may find that it is worth exploring one of those avenues, but we are not in a position to tell you which one."

Mr. Rupert Allason: I hope that we will not involve such sinister organisations as the Church of England.
I invite the right hon. Gentleman to speculate on the role of an intelligence officer who participates in a surveillance operation with a colleague who is a police


officer. It is a golden recipe for muddle and confusion. Those two officers, who will be conducting a joint operation, will be subject to quite different codes of discipline. One is fairly overt, with the police officer being subject to the police complaints procedure, but the other protects the intelligence officer with a great panoply of secrecy, with the tribunal and the commissioner as the very last resort.
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that is a recipe for great mischief? Would it not be better for both officers to be subject to precisely the same discipline while part of a police joint operation? Should they not both be subject to the police complaints procedure?

Mr. Beith: I would have preferred just that solution. Indeed, the position described by the hon. Gentleman is dealt with not only in this new clause, but in amendment No. 1, which deals with the different warranting procedures that should apply in an eavesdropping operation. We will deal with that amendment later. The hon. Gentleman implied a transfer of personnel, which is not the route chosen by the Government in the Bill. In principle, I would have preferred that, although it removes the ability to switch resources between the various activities in which the Security Service is involved.
There is a dilemma. If we are not careful, we will create a situation in which anyone will be able to find out whether the Security Service has been involved in an operation against him—simply by submitting a complaint and waiting for the appropriate leaflets to arrive. That may be a slow process and the complainant may not find out what he wants to know for 12 months or so—but when he gets the leaflets, he will know.
The complainant will receive information and he will be invited to consider whether he wishes to use the complaints machinery of any of several organisations. I do not think that that is a good solution. It would have been better to give the Police Complaints Authority some responsibility for satisfying itself on that point. After all, it could inquire whether the Security Service was involved, pursue the complaint and then go back to the complainant—as it would with any genuine complaint—and say that not only did no police officer act improperly but that it was satisfied that no officer of any other agency was involved. The complainant would not then need to go elsewhere, because the PCA would have been able to establish that fact and relay it to the complainant, without providing an easy route by which a complainant could find out whether the Security Service was involved.
I do not think that some aspects of this matter have been sufficiently thought through. I do not have total confidence in the form that I have chosen, although, having listened to the debate, I genuinely believe that it is better than the leaflet procedure. I invite the Minister to consider it further before the Bill gets to the other place. Perhaps there could be further discussion with the PCA and the Security Service Tribunal and commissioner to find a way to ensure that there is no hole into which matters could fall and that the whole thing does not simply become a device through which a damaging disclosure could occur.
At the same time, the public need to be sure that they will not be led a dance and that, if there is a proper complaint, it will be directed to wherever it can best be properly investigated. At the end of the day, the public

need to be satisfied that, in so far as the complaints bodies are effective, the complaint has been examined and found to be either justified or not justified. We are not yet at that point. I wonder if the Minister can tell me—perhaps in an intervention—whether he is prepared to examine the implications of that. It is an important issue, and I will happily give way to him if he is prepared to deal with it. We have not yet reached a satisfactory conclusion.

Mr. Maclean: I may not have described a solution in such a manner that the right hon. Gentleman has been convinced, but I cannot see any alternative to it. It may be that those in the other place will find refinements to add to it, but we shall have to consider those when we see the proposed amendments. The only solution that the right hon. Gentleman suggested, which he himself then rejected, would mean transferring resources to the police service and giving Security Service personnel the offices and duties of a constable so that they would be subject to the police complaints machinery. That would entail the loss of the current tremendous flexibility. That is the only alternative of which I can think; we have rejected it, as has the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Beith: That alternative was suggested by the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason), or it was implicit in the criticism that he made, and I have considered it. However, there are other arguments against taking that course. I have suggested to the Minister—formally in the new clause and less formally in what I have been telling him—that permitting the Police Complaints Authority to have a role in ensuring that a complaint is processed right the way through will ensure that the involvement of Security Service personnel will not serve as a route by which members of the public are simply fobbed off and not provided with the certainty that their complaints are being dealt with.
That would ensure that members of the public were not left in the position in which a hint was dropped to them that it might be worth complaining to the Security Service or some other, unspecified body, and the public would at least have some assurance that there was a body with the power and capacity to check whether that really was the case and to direct the complaint appropriately.
I do not think that the Minister has responded satisfactorily to my argument. That matter remains a serious problem in the Bill, and I shall therefore press the new clause.

Mr. Allason: I invite my right hon. Friend the Minister to examine one loophole in the existing arrangement. If there is a joint operation and an individual makes a complaint to the Security Service Tribunal, it is possible that, under the current legislation, had that individual been the subject of a Security Service file that existed before December 1989, neither the tribunal nor the commissioner could investigate the complaint.
There could, therefore, be circumstances in which an individual feels that he has a legitimate complaint and the complaint cannot be directed to the police complaints procedure. The complaint should properly be directed towards the Security Service commissioner or the tribunal, but, because that person had become the subject of a Security Service file before the passage of the Security Service Act 1989, the Security Service Tribunal would of course decline to conduct an investigation.
The loophole has consistently been in operation. Many people can put different interpretations on the fact that the tribunal and the commissioner have not upheld a single complaint since 1989 and have not disclosed the number of complaints which have been made to them, but I am concerned that the loophole will disadvantage a great many people.
The potential for muddle between both disciplines in a joint operation is considerable. I should remind the House of the events that took place in Northern Ireland when there was precisely such an overlap. It occurred at the beginning of the Stalker affair, when there was a Security Service surveillance operation on a barn in which some suspects were shot dead by the RUC. The House will recall that John Stalker was invited to investigate the matter and it was discovered that, in a clandestine surveillance operation, the Security Service had taped all the events that took place on the day of the shooting, including conversations between the RUC officers involved.
Thereafter, the tapes of those recordings went missing. John Stalker became very aggravated about what took place and Colin Sampson subsequently conducted an inquiry and recommended that two security officers should be prosecuted for perverting the course of justice. The House will also recall that, quite properly, the decision was taken that it was not in the public interest to proceed with those prosecutions.
The reason why I cite that case is that it is a classic example of overlap and confusion between two services and two disciplines in separate organisations, operating in extremely difficult circumstances. Indeed, one can scarcely imagine more difficult circumstances. We may be able to debate such issues in a calm and relaxed atmosphere, but while attempting to execute a warrant for the interference of property, adrenalin runs very high.
I find the idea of both officers being subject to totally different disciplines so full of loopholes that I am sure as eggs is eggs that conflict will occur sooner or later and create precisely the problems eventually discovered by John Stalker and Colin Sampson, which were certainly to John Stalker's cost.

Dr. Godman: I am grateful to the Minister for his response to my question. If the proposed leaflet was discussed in Committee, did his officials discuss it with Scottish chief constables?
I am concerned that, while investigating cases such as those I mentioned, about traffic in arms between Scotland and Northern Ireland, an intelligence officer may make inquiries of the employers of suspected persons. In a case of mistaken identity, an innocent employee's job prospects may suffer severely, although I pray to heaven that such cases are very rare. A person could face losing his employment, especially if the case were publicised as much as the recent gaoling of the loyalist paramilitary.
I am not being facetious when I suggest that it might be an idea to give Members copies of leaflets. I am sure that all Members have heard constituents in their surgeries—or advice bureaux or whatever they are called these days—complaining about the local police. In the

west of Scotland, an employee who is confronted by an irate employer who has been questioned about an employee's suspected involvement in gun running to Belfast and elsewhere might face dismissal. In those circumstances, the first person he might approach for help would be his local Member of Parliament.
Those are my questions to the Minister. Was the leaflet discussed in Committee? Has it been discussed with chief constables north of the border and, if so, what was their reaction to it? What is likely to happen to those persons whose employers are approached in the cases that I have used by way of illustration?

Mr. Michael: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is an important issue and it has been an interesting short debate. However, it is clear that there are no simple easy answers to the problem. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) accepted that his solution does not do the job, so the House is left without a solution.
The Minister accepted, as we do, that the public should have a simple means of raising an issue that gives rise to concern—one in which they feel they have been threatened, intimidated or otherwise wronged. The means of reaching such an accommodation should be simple. However, there are the reservations to which the Minister rightly referred. We do not want to open the books or destroy the confidentiality of the work of the Security Service.
The idea that every form of discipline should be the same is patently ludicrous. Many professions operate under different types of discipline. That applies even to professions such as banisters and solicitors, which laymen might regard as the same. In my experience, teachers and youth workers work under a different structure of accountability and discipline, but that does not stop them working effectively together.
Perhaps closer and more germane to the issue is what happens when customs and police work together. Obviously, we want them to work together effectively and obviously we want a system that will deal with complaints. At some point, we may come to the question of accountability and complaints in relation to the customs. The House should consider that matter, because the situation is not perfect.
The Security Service has a problem with regard to transparency and accountability in its ordinary work. That is what the tribunal is about. It is not perfect, but it is a means of trying to address complaints. That becomes all the more important when, as a result of the Bill, the Security Service is drawn into joint working with the police and other law enforcement agencies.
The Minister has acknowledged, as we have in Committee and again today, that there is a problem that needs to be addressed. I do not think that there is an instant solution. I hope that in concluding the debate the Minister will agree that this important issue should be kept under scrutiny and that we should seek the best possible way to deal with it.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: Surely the difficulty for people such as me is that, by introducing the Security Service into what are traditionally criminal matters, you are importing into our system of policing the apparatus and special legal arrangements, which are


unique in a democracy, of the security services. That is what causes anxiety here. The appeal system or review should be a policing matter, not under the security services.

Mr. Michael: I am sure that neither you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, nor I are importing this into legislation. It is the Government who seek to do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) said earlier that matters such as trafficking in weapons and the impact of that on his constituency and other parts of Scotland cannot be divided into crime on the one hand and terrorism on the other. We all want such things to be tackled, because they cause problems in our society.
The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) might learn something from reading our debates in Committee, because we were trying then, as now, to tease out the precise definitions that could be put in legislation and Ministers' precise understandings so that both the intention of Parliament and the legislation were clear. That is what we have been endeavouring to achieve during the past few weeks.
These complaints are being made over-complex. Such a complexity currently exists because the Security Service is beginning to assist the police service. I am concerned that unsolved business may exist. In the future, this must be examined in the light of practice and experience. It should not be dismissed—it is a serious matter—but it should not delay the legislation. If the Minister agrees with us on the area of concern to which we should apply our minds in the future, the intention of Parliament will be clear.

Mr. Maclean: I agree with the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). In the past hour, hon. Members have agonised over hypothetical cases—which we expect to be few and far between—where, for some reason, the Security Service will be involved in a joint operation, will be behind the front line of intelligence gathering and analysis, and will come in contact with a member of the public, and then there is a complaint.
As the hon. Gentleman said, we are currently in that scenario because of the help that the Security Service is giving the Metropolitan police in leading the fight against terrorism in Britain. At the present time, it is possible that members of the public will come up against a member of the Security Service when they think that they are dealing with a police complaint. Those twin tracks exist at the moment. I know that hon. Members would like the Security Service Tribunal machinery to be different, but that is the way it is, and that is what was agreed by the House. There are no plans to change that, nor should we change it just because we are now dealing with organised crime.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) was not a member of the Committee. I am certain that, if he had been a member, every matter relating to Scotland would have been raised, and we could have discussed his honourable career as a red cap. There is no equivalent to the Police Complaints Authority in Scotland—there is different machinery—but the initiating stages are the same: an individual makes a complaint to the local police force and it is the duty of the

chief constable to investigate it. That will apply equally in Scotland and in England. We shall ensure that the leaflets have valid currency in Scotland. I shall draw the Security Service's attention to the points that the hon. Gentleman made, but I see no reason for them to be any different to take account of Scotland.
I am not sure whether my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) was correct. The tribunal's remit extends to any inquiries by the Security Service that have been initiated since November 1989—when the tribunal came into being—and any inquiries that were initiated before November 1989 where no decision had been taken to discontinue them in the intervening period. Any investigation by the service that ceased before the tribunal came into being is outside the tribunal's remit—although, in exceptional circumstances, it can pass a complaint to the commissioner. So that I do not delay the proceedings, I shall write a detailed letter to my hon. Friends and place it in the Library.

Mr. Allason: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot make a second contribution. On Report, only the mover of an amendment or a new clause and the Minister responsible may speak twice. All other hon. Members must collect their thoughts and make only one contribution.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 31, Noes 267.

Division No. 54]
[4.58 pm


AYES


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Maclennan, Robert


Berth, Rt Hon A J
Maddock, Diana


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Campbell-Savours, D N
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Canavan, Dennis
Rendel, David


Chidgey, David
Simpson, Alan


Corbyn, Jeremy
Skinner, Dennis


Dafis, Cynog
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Godman, Dr Norman A
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)



Tyler, Paul


Harvey, Nick
Wallace, James


Hinchliffe, David
Welsh, Andrew


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys MÔn)
Wigley, Dafydd


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Winnick, David


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)



Loyden, Eddie
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lynne, Ms Liz
Mr. Alex Carlile and


McCartney, Robert
Mr. Archy Kirkwood.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Beggs, Roy


Alexander, Richard
Bellingham, Henry


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Beresford, Sir Paul


Amess, David
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Body, Sir Richard


Arbuthnot, James
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Booth, Hartley


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Boswell, Tim


Ashby, David
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Bowden, Sir Andrew


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Bowis, John


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Brandreth, Gyles


Baldry, Tony
Brazier, Julian


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Bright, Sir Graham


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Bates, Michael
Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)






Browning, Mrs Angela
Haselhurst, Sir Alan


Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)
Hawkins, Nick


Butcher, John
Hawksley, Warren


Butler, Peter
Heald, Oliver


Butterfill, John
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hendry, Charles


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hicks, Robert


Carrington, Matthew
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Carttiss, Michael
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Cash, William
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Horam, John


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Clappison, James
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Coe, Sebastian
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Congdon, David
Hunter, Andrew


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Jack, Michael


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Jenkin, Bernard


Couchman, James
Jessel, Toby


Cran, James
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Day, Stephen
Key, Robert


Deva, Nirj Joseph
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dicks, Terry
Kirkhope, Timothy


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knapman, Roger


Duncan, Alan
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)


Dunn, Bob
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Knox, Sir David


Dykes, Hugh
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Elletson, Harold
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Legg, Barry


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lidington, David


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Evennett, David
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Faber, David
Lord, Michael


Fabricant, Michael
Luff, Peter


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fishburn, Dudley
MacKay, Andrew


Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Forth, Eric
Madel, Sir David


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Maitland, Lady Olga


Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Malone, Gerald


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Mans, Keith


French, Douglas
Marland, Paul


Fry, Sir Peter
Marlow, Tony


Gale, Roger
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gallie, Phil
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Gardiner, Sir George
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Garnier, Edward
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Gill, Christopher
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Gillan, Cheryl
Merchant, Piers


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Mills, Iain


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Nelson, Anthony


Hague, Rt Hon William
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Nicholls, Patrick


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Norris, Steve


Hannam, Sir John
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hargreaves, Andrew
Page, Richard


Harris, David
Paice, James





Patnick, Sir Irvine
Sykes, John


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Pawsey, James
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Pickles, Eric
Temple-Morris, Peter


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Thomason, Roy


Porter, David (Waveney)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Powell, William (Corby)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Rathbone, Tim
Thurnham, Peter


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Riddick, Graham
Tracey, Richard


Robathan, Andrew
Tredinnick, David


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Trend, Michael


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Trotter, Neville


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Walden, George


Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Shaw, David (Dover)
Waller, Gary


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)



Waterson, Nigel


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Watts, John


Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)



Shersby, Sir Michael
Wells, Bowen


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Whitney, Ray



Whittingdale, John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Widdecombe, Ann


Smyth, The Reverend Martin
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Spencer, Sir Derek
Wilkinson, John


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Willetts, David


Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)
Wilshire, David


Spink, Dr Robert
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Spring, Richard
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Sproat, Iain
Wolfson, Mark


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Wood, Timothy


Steen, Anthony
Yeo, Tim


Stern, Michael
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Stewart, Allan



Streeter, Gary
Tellers for the Noes:


Sumberg, David
Mr. Derek Conway and


Sweeney, Walter
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 5

INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY COMMITTEE AND THE PREVENTION AND DETECTION OF SERIOUS CRIME

`.At the end of section 10 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994 (The Intelligence and Security Committee) there shall be added—

"(8) The power of the Prime Minister referred to in subsection (7) above shall not apply to any matter in the report of the Committee that relates directly to the function of the Security Service as established in section 1(4) of the Security Service Act 1989.".'.—[Mr. Straw.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Straw: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I do not doubt that the new clause is technically defective. In any event, we tabled it not to secure a vote, but as a vehicle for debate. It raises the issue of the accountability of the Security Service to the Intelligence and Security Committee and then to the House. In the debate on new clause 1, there was discussion about whether the Bill ought to proceed, given the appalling outrage committed by the IRA when it let off its terrorist bomb last Friday. On that issue, I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth


(Mr. Michael) and the Minister of State: it would be wholly wrong for us to suspend the passage of the Bill as a response to that terrorist outrage.
Part of the public's reaction to that bomb reveals their ambivalence towards the work of the Security Service. In the aftermath of the bomb outrage, some of the newspapers raised the legitimate question of how much the Security Service knew about the possibility of a terrorist bombing. I do not expect the Home Secretary to give an answer to that question; I am making a separate point. Implicit in that question is a demand by the public that the Security Service should be ever vigilant. The public also recognise that, for that vigilance to be maintained, the Security Service has to work secretively and confidentially. There was a demand from both sides of the House, as well as from newspapers of different persuasions, for greater intelligence-gathering and more surveillance to prevent terrorist outrages. That is one instinct of the public.
At the same time, precisely because of the inherently secretive nature of the work of the security services—their work can be of no other nature—there is a natural anxiety that the power that we invest in them should not be abused. The occasions on which it has been abused have been few. The arrangements discussed when we debated the Security Service Act 1989, which have been put in place in recent years, ensure that the possibility of abuse is far smaller than it was before.

Mr. Allason: I remind the hon. Gentleman that, on Second Reading, the Minister said that there was excess capacity in the Security Service and that that was part of the reason why the Bill had been introduced. The hon. Gentleman is now demanding extra vigilance and asking for more officers to be deployed in the task of counter-terrorism. Does he think it appropriate that, within a few days of a bomb going off at Canary wharf, the public are told that the Security Service has excess capacity? Surely the events of the past few days demonstrate that, if there are people in Thames house who are twiddling their thumbs, there is an obvious job for them to do.

Mr. Straw: I cannot recall every last word that the Secretary of State uttered on Second Reading on 10 January. I do not recall his using the phrase "excess capacity"—

Mr. Allason: It was the Minister of State.

Mr. Straw: I do not recall the Minister of State using the phrase. The record will prove which of our recollections is correct. In any event, there is no argument between us on the next point. As a result not only of the ceasefire—temporary as it has turned out—by the Provisional IRA, but of more profound, long-term changes that have occurred in eastern Europe, it seemed that there might be some resources within the Security Service that could be available for the pursuit of organised crime and in support of the police and other law enforcement agencies.
The Bill is, of course, founded on the fact that, contingent on the work of the Provisional IRA, in the medium term there is the prospect of stability in Northern

Ireland and thus a serious judgment can be made about winding down some of the anti-terrorist work of the Security Service. Palpably, that judgment cannot be made today. If the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) reads the debates of 10 January, he will see that Ministers and Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen made the point that we did not know whether the ceasefire was temporary or permanent. It was always anticipated that the attitude of the Provisional IRA would be crucial.
In the debate on new clause 1, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) spoke about three prisoners who are in Edinburgh prison for running arms and with whom he has had dealings. It was not clear from what he said whether the men had been convicted of a terrorist offence; they had certainly been convicted of a weapons offence. As my hon. Friend implied, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth made clear, in the real world, the dividing line between organised crime and terrorism is difficult to define. We have supported the principle behind the Bill. If there is—this is the phrase used by the hon. Member for Torbay, not mine—excess capacity in the Security Service, it is sensible for it to be deployed in the pursuit of organised crime.
Time is short, given that there is another debate on a separate issue that has to be taken before 10 pm. The Second Reading debate reflected concern across the Chamber that, as the Security Service is to move into a new area of activity, there should be robust arrangements for its accountability. We were assisted in that debate by the report of the Intelligence and Security Committee, which was important in flagging up some of the issues.
We have tabled the new clause to provide an opportunity for the Secretary of State to recognise that it is important that, as the Security Service moves into a new area, the public should be reassured that the service is working as Ministers and Parliament intend. I hope that the Intelligence and Security Committee will produce an early report, once the new work is under way, in which it will discuss its views about how the work has been undertaken.
The new clause also concerns the power of the Prime Minister essentially to censor parts of a report that is produced by the Committee and intended for the eyes of Members of Parliament. All of us understand that there has to be some such mechanism when a scrutiny Committee deals with the work of the intelligence and security services, but I should be glad if the Secretary of State would give an assurance that, although it may sometimes be necessary for operational details that have somehow crept into the draft of the Committee's report to be excised from the public record, Ministers or the Prime Minister do not intend that the Committee's views and judgments about the Security Service's overall work should be the subject of amendment or deletion by Prime Minister.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I regret that Scottish business made it impossible for me to participate, as I might have wished, in the Committee that considered the Bill. Hon. Members who did not go through the heat of the day in Committee have an obligation to be succinct, so I should simply like to ask the Home Secretary the following.
It is not clear to me—perhaps it should be—what the arrangements would be, if the Security Service were used to combat organised crime, in relation to its personnel


appearing in court. It is unfair to ask the Secretary of State whether there are any differences between Scotland and England, but perhaps he could ask his Scottish Office colleagues to write to me if any differences exist in the procedures of Scottish courts.
There is a problem, with which I am sure he is all too familiar, of people operating for the service being unable, by the very nature of their role in the service, to be cross-examined in court, as would happen to other witnesses. I leave it at that.

Mr. Winnick: It would be strange if, when debating the Bill, we did not refer, as we have for obvious reasons, to the tragedy that occurred last Friday. I do not recall precisely what the Home Secretary said on Second Reading about MI5's position as a result of the lack— fortunately—of terrorist activity since the ceasefire started, but clearly the position is different now. The House does not know whether there will be more terrorist attacks. We are in the dark, and that is all the more reason why the Security Service should be using all its skills and resources—I am sure that it is—to analyse intelligence and, as far as possible, to give the necessary warnings to the Government about the possibility of future terrorist attacks. That is bound to be MI5's main role.
New clause 5, also, touches on a subject that is sensitive for Parliament. We are dealing with accountability which, inevitably, we discussed on Second Reading and in Committee. I have long taken the view that, for all the Security Service's importance and sensitivity, we should try as far as possible, as happens in other western democracies, to make its work accountable to parliamentary scrutiny. That does not of course include on-going operations—no one suggests that, certainly not me—but there should be a degree of accountability.
To the people who say that some progress has been made by setting up the Intelligence and Security Committee that reports to the Prime Minister, I would say that it is progress, but limited. The situation is different from that in which I and other hon. Members raised the subject in the early 1980s. The Committee consists of parliamentarians who are able to consider various aspects of the intelligence service. It would be wrong of me—however much I believe that parliamentary scrutiny to be limited—simply to write it off. When the Bill was before us, I accepted that it was a form of progress and that it was better than nothing. I said that before the Minister of State was involved.
The Intelligence and Security Committee is not in any sense a Select Committee. It does not report directly to Parliament. It reports only to the Prime Minister, who decides whether certain parts of its report should be deleted before being presented to Parliament. The Committee meets not in a parliamentary building, but in the Cabinet Office. It is officered not by any of the Clerks, but by an official from the Cabinet Office. Undoubtedly, a difference therefore exists between the accountability that we have under the Select Committee system and that under this Committee.
I apologise for missing the first few minutes of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). We are saying that the added powers that the Bill gives to MI5—those on crime prevention—should be subject to the same parliamentary scrutiny as the police's work.
As I reminded the Committee that considered the Bill, when I served on the Select Committee on Home Affairs from 1979 to 1983, I suggested, and the Conservative majority agreed, which was surprising, that the Select Committee should consider the special branch's work. There was uproar at the time. People outside the Committee, including the then Home Secretary, said that we were undermining the Security Service, which worked closely with special branch, but lo and behold, we considered special branch's work, heard evidence from the police, the Home Secretary and some critics and published a majority-minority report. Special branch continues and, to the best of my knowledge, the Security Service was in no way undermined.
That illustrates the panic that occurs when it is suggested that the work of, for example, special branch or the Security Service should be subject to some degree of parliamentary scrutiny. The accusation is immediately made that we are all against the Security Service and that we are trying to undermine it in every conceivable way. That is nonsense. The Select Committee's consideration of special branch's work illustrates and proves my point.
Labour's proposal makes sense. If we cannot obtain the parliamentary scrutiny that we want of the intelligence and security services—obviously, we will not obtain it now—why not allow the appropriate Select Committee, which outside Scotland would presumably be the Select Committee on Home Affairs, to consider at least the added powers given to MI5 to deal with ordinary crime? After all, it would be a contradiction if the police's work were subject to parliamentary scrutiny by a Select Committee—no Conservative Member, whether on the Front or Back Benches, argues against that, and no one is likely to do so today—and that added aspect of MI5's work, not relating to the main thrust of its work, were not. That is a far more sensible way of going about matters. As the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) said so eloquently, we in Britain seem to be obsessed with secrecy, which does not help the Security Service.

Mr. Beith: Am I misunderstanding the new clause or am I right in thinking that it does not have the effect that the hon. Gentleman describes—of giving Select Committees the opportunity to consider the Security Service's work in this area? Is not its effect rather to preclude the Prime Minister from excluding from the published Intelligence and Security Committee report any item that he thinks would be prejudicial to the Security Service's continued effective operation?

Mr. Winnick: Technically, the right hon. Gentleman is right. I have extended the argument. I suggest simply that, after implementing the new clause—I hope that I am in order. I am just concluding my remarks, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I simply suggest that we set up the appropriate Committee to do precisely what I have described. The new clause goes some way towards that. The Prime Minister would not be in a position to delete any relevant references, but that would not apply to the rest of the work undertaken by MI5.
In Committee, I suggested that the appropriate parliamentary Committee should be able to look at the additional work undertaken by MI5 as a result of the Bill. In the past, I and others have put forward arguments that have been dismissed out of hand. Nevertheless, a


parliamentary Committee with limited powers was eventually set up, and I am sure that the time will come when what I am now urging will be realised—it is just a question of when.
This country has an unfortunate obsession with secrecy—unlike other western democracies that are no less serious about wanting to combat terrorism. The United States, Canada and other countries loathe terrorism just as much as we do, but they adopt a far more mature approach to the work of their security and intelligence services.

Mr. Allason: New clause 5 assumes a degree of external independence and oversight of the work of the security and intelligence services. Looking at the record to date, I cannot say that I am hugely encouraged. The report directly relevant to this Bill was delayed for six weeks so that it could be published on precisely the same day as the Bill was published—the beginning of the Christmas recess. There was therefore only very limited time for right hon. and hon. Members to examine both documents. If the Committee was truly exercising its independence, perhaps it should have published its document when it was ready, instead of deliberately delaying it so as to be able to publish it on the same day as the Bill.
It is important that there be external scrutiny, because we have heard the Minister of State say today that the objective of the Bill is to allow the Security Service to operate far behind the front line. The "analytical skills" that are apparently to be deployed by the Security Service are, to my mind, a euphemism for running agents. The Security Service has a limited number of powers, skills and technologies. I submit that running agents and handling agents are not far behind the front line: they are right to the fore. This is precisely the interface between the public and the clandestine world which causes so many problems.
Anyone who doubts that there have been problems should take a look at the problem that the Government face tomorrow afternoon. A Security Service informant was supplying information to a handler who may or may not have asked the right questions. That is how the Matrix Churchill affair arose in the first place.
If there is to be agent handling—one of the prime functions of the Security Service and apparently one of its successes—there will have to be external scrutiny of it if the Committee is to have any meaning at all. The Littlejohn brothers believed that they could rob banks because they had the telephone number of a case officer who would get them out of trouble if they were arrested. They went to prison, and rightly so.
Stephen Ward believed that he would be let off the criminal charge that he faced because he had been an agent of the Security Service. Instead, he was left to dangle, and committed suicide. The biggest marijuana dealer in the world managed to wriggle off a charge in this country because he claimed that he had been in touch with the secret intelligence service to supply information about the Provisional IRA.
My point is that the most sensitive and difficult area of Security Service operations is to be found in the very human environment of the relationship between an agent and his handler. This area has created considerable

problems in the past. If Paul Henderson is anything to go by, it looks to me as though there may be one or two problems in the future, too. If agent handling is one of the principal occupations and skills of the Security Service, euphemistically referred to as an analytical skill, I repeat: it is not far behind the front line.
I therefore urge the House not just to agree to the new clause but to ensure that the external body which—uniquely—this House has taken the trouble to create, so as to arrange for parliamentary oversight of the Security Service, is encouraged to exercise a little independence, not to mention the proper powers that this House has, again uniquely, conferred on it.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): I begin by responding to the references to last Friday night's tragedy and its relationship to the provisions before the House. The House was at its most impressive on Monday when, in a spirit of unity, it expressed its outrage at Friday's events. Since then, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) have suggested that the Bill should be delayed or not proceeded with as a result of what happened on Friday night.
In common with the Minister of State and the Labour spokesman, I believe that that would be the worst possible signal we could give the Provisional IRA. We have said all along that the work of the Security Service against organised crime would depend on the competing demands and resources of the service. Clearly the service will need to reappraise its position in the light of Friday's bomb, but that is no reason to deny ourselves the opportunity to use its capability against the menace of organised crime, as circumstances permit.
The recollection by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) of what was said on this matter on Second Reading is seriously mistaken. Neither I nor the Minister of State said that there was excess capacity in the Security Service. Indeed, in answer to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), I stated:
if it proves to be the case that some spare resources are available in the Security Service, we should avail ourselves of its particular skills and expertise in the fight against organised crime, which is one of the greatest threats we face.
Towards the end of my speech I added:
Initially, the number of officers that the service will be able to deploy in pursuit of the new function will be small. The resources that it will be able to devote to that area of its work in future will depend on external circumstances and on the competing demands on its resources. In particular, much will depend on the continuance of the ceasefires in Northern Ireland."—[Official Report, 10 January 1996; Vol.269, c.218–25.]
In his wind-up speech, my right hon. Friend made similar observations, but not in the sense wrongly recollected by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay.
I can assure the House that there will be no question of insufficient resources being devoted to the battle against terrorism because of the new function that this legislation will confer on the Security Service. Every effort is being made by the police, with the support of the Security Service and others, to bring to justice those responsible for last Friday night's outrage, and to seek to prevent any


repetition. It is important to be crystal clear about that. Dealing with the terrorist threat must, and will, remain the top priority of the service.

Mr. Winnick: There may be disagreement about whether, as a result of Friday's tragedy, MI5's resources should be utilised as they presumably are now, before the Bill has become law, but does the Home Secretary accept that those of us who have expressed reservations have not the slightest desire to give in to the IRA and are not panicking because of the IRA attack? We do not know what will happen or whether there will be renewed terrorist threats. Prior to this measure, it was generally assumed that MI5, over the past 25 years, with other security services, had been directing most of its energies to fighting terrorism. I hope that he will not misunderstand the position.

Mr. Howard: I have not sought, and do not seek, to impugn the motives of those who have expressed that view—neither the hon. Gentleman's motives nor those of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. I differ in my assessment of the nature of the signal that would be sent. It would be the wrong signal, a dangerous one and not that which the House would wish to send.
I have some sympathy with the new clause moved by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and especially with the desire that lies behind it that as much information as possible should be made available to Parliament and to the public. The Government have pursued a policy of much greater openness in regard to the work of the intelligence agencies. Avowing their existence and putting them on a statutory footing was an example of that, as was the creation of the very committed Intelligence and Security Committee to which the new clause refers.

Mr. Dalyell: On the question of openness, could I go back to the question that I asked earlier, or is the Home Secretary is coming to that?

Mr. Howard: indicated assent.

Mr. Dalyell: If he is coming to it, I shall wait.

Mr. Howard: The Committee reports to the Prime Minister. It is then for the Prime Minister, after consultation with the Committee, to decide whether there are any parts of an ISC report that should, for reasons of sensitivity, not be laid before Parliament. As a matter of policy, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will always seek to publish as much as possible of any ISC report and only withhold information that is genuinely sensitive.
We would certainly expect that it would almost always be possible to publish in full any ISC report, or part of an ISC report, dealing with the new function that the Bill confers on the Security Service. We recognise, as do the movers of the new clause, that such work could be less sensitive than other areas of the work of the service. It follows from what I have said that I can without any difficulty give the hon. Member for Blackburn the assurance that he sought that the sense of any recommendations of the Committee and any observations contained in its report would, of course, be taken extremely seriously.
Nevertheless, it is possible that, in carrying out its function of examining the expenditure, administration and policy of the Security Service in relation to its new function, the ISC may want to deal with sensitive information. It may want to report to the Prime Minister on the implications for the other functions of the service arising from its work against serious crime. It may want to comment on issues of policy arising from on-going investigations or completed cases that had become sub judice. It would be wrong to place the Committee in the position where it was required either to leave important points out of its annual report or to run the risk of putting sensitive information into the public domain.
5.45 pm
The force of those reasons was recognised in the decision of Parliament not to qualify the exactly analogous power given to the Prime Minister in respect of 1SC reports on the role of the Secret Intelligence Service and GCHQ in relation to serious crime. It is equally important that the Prime Minister should retain the discretion, after consultation with the ISC, not to publish parts of its reports that deal with the serious crime work of the Security Service.
Before I sit down, I shall deal briefly with the question raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), remote though it is from the subject matter of the new clause. He asked about the circumstances in which evidence is given by members of the Security Service in court. As he rightly surmised, I would be foolish to trespass into the province of the practices of the Scottish courts.
In England and Wales, it is not the case, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, that members of the Security Service are immune from cross-examination; their evidence is subject to it. It has been the practice for them to give evidence in such a way that the identity of the officer is not disclosed. It is given from behind a screen or something like that. But members of the Security Service are not the only people in sensitive occupations for whom similar arrangements have been made. Those arrangements are made by decision of the court on the basis of the particular circumstances of the case. I expect that to continue. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's question, at least in respect of England and Wales.

Mr. Dalyell: Does that answer coincide with the advice that the Home Secretary has had from senior police officers? Without trespassing on the Scottish situation, there is unease about the matter among senior members of the Scottish police.

Mr. Howard: I do not want to follow the hon. Gentleman along that line. I have acted on the basis of close consultation with the police service generally. I do not believe that his point is a matter of continuing concern.

Mr. Beith: Perhaps for the purposes of shorthand, the Home Secretary used words such as "sensitive" to describe the things that the Prime Minister might seek to exclude from the Intelligence and Security Committee report before it came before Parliament. He did not use the words of the Intelligence Services Act 1994, which refers to a matter which
would be prejudicial to the continued discharge of the functions


of the service. I hope that he will put that point on record, because it is not intended that that power should allow the Prime Minister to exclude matters that are merely inconvenient or embarrassing.

Mr. Howard: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister always acts in accordance with the language of statute, and will do so in the context of this statute as in all others.
I hope that the hon. Member for Blackburn will accept that the power to withhold from publication part of an ISC report would never be used lightly but that it is important to retain it for all elements of the work of the Security Service because all of them may involve sensitive operations and methods or information prejudicial to its operations.

Mr. Allason: May I take my right hon. and learned Friend back to my mistaken use of the words "excess capacity" for which he rightly corrected me? I refer him to the Official Report of 10 January, when my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), was asked what was the catalyst for the legislation. He replied:
The answer is that we have identified that in the Security Service there are some skills, especially analytical skills, and it has some resources and, God willing, if Northern Ireland continues in its present course, it may have some capacity to contribute to the battle. I simply say to the House, if there are those skills, if there is that capacity, we should all be pretty daft to look that gift horse in the mouth."—[Official Report, 10 January 1996; Vol. 269, c. 300.]
It seems to me that my shorthand of "excess capacity" reflects precisely what my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said, and that that remains the catalyst for the legislation.

Mr. Howard: I am afraid that my hon. Friend and I will have to differ on that. He has been good enough to read from Hansard the precise words of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. It will be possible for everyone to make an easy and straightforward comparison between those words and the characterisation of them that my hon. Friend gave earlier. I am perfectly satisfied that there is a wide gap between the characterisation that he previously gave and the words used by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on Second Reading.
In the light of everything that I have said, I hope that the hon. Member for Blackburn will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Straw: I am grateful for the assurances that the Home Secretary has given. In the light of what he has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 6

REVIEW OF PACE

'. Six months after this Act has come into force, the Secretary of State shall consult with the Director-General of the Security Service, the person designated under subsection (3B) of section (2) of the Security Service Act 1989 and the chief officers of police forces and other law enforcement agencies as to whether the activities of the Security Service in pursuance of the prevention and detection of serious crime indicate that any changes are required to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984:.—[Mr. Michael.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Michael: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 6 is important: it concerns the application of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 in the new circumstances created by the Bill. It suggests that, six months after the Act has come into force, the Home Secretary should consult the Director-General of the Security Service and the person designated under the Security Service Act 1989—the chief constable, who is deemed to be, as it were, the guardian at the gate, along with the police and other law enforcement agencies. That is a new development following the Committee stage. After that consultation, attention should be paid to whether any amendments to PACE are needed to cope with the new operations of the Security Service.
It may be found at that stage that there is no need to change PACE, and that its operation should apply to the activities of the Security Service in support of the police and other law enforcement agencies. It would, of course, be ideal if the Act that is designed to regulate such matters were found to be appropriate. There has, however, been considerable concern that the Security Service might operate outside the requirements of the law in relation to criminal evidence in supporting the police and other law enforcement agencies, crossing boundaries in a way that the House would consider inappropriate. The new clause is intended to ensure that the issue is aired, and that, under PACE, the correct rules for dealing with the collection of evidence and presenting it to a court is observed by the police when supported by the Security Service, as they are by the police alone.
In recent years, serious attention has been paid to the way in which PACE operates. None of us want the powers of the police and other law enforcement agencies to be misused, or abused. I hope that the Minister, when he responds to what I expect to be a short debate—this is a narrow issue, although it is important—will agree that the existing standards should be observed, that they should not be changed as a result of the alterations proposed in the Bill and that the public should be able to have confidence in the rules according to which evidence is collected and put before a court.

Mr. Harry Cohen: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) on raising the issue of PACE. Under sections 10 to 14, certain records are either excluded from seizure or subject to restriction. Under section 10, for instance,
items subject to legal privilege
cannot be seized unless they are
held with the intention of furthering a criminal purpose".
Sections 11 to 14 restrict the seizure of health and journalistic records by requiring a warrant to be signed by a circuit judge, and—prior to agreement to the issuing of such a warrant—the application of certain rigid tests relating to, for example, the importance of the material to the investigation of a serious arrestable offence.
Those requirements relate to three fundamental freedoms, which should not be subject to undue interference by the security services. Those freedoms are the right to seek legal advice from a lawyer in confidence, the support of a free press by means of the protection of journalistic material and the expectation that one's medical condition will remain confidential. When


Parliament discussed the issue back in 1984, it clearly thought that it would be intolerable for someone to discuss his defence with a lawyer, only for the police to barge in and seize the details of the discussion. Similarly, Parliament took the view that procedures relating to the seizure of health and journalistic records should be subject to close scrutiny by a judge.
Under the Bill, that could be bypassed by the security services; it could also be bypassed by the police, who could get the security services to do the job for them. As the Bill stands, a warrant relating to support of the prevention and detection of serious crime could be signed by the Home Secretary; such a warrant would then authorise interference with property and computers in a lawyer's office or a doctor's surgery, or on a newspaper editor's desk.

Mr. David Ashby: I am sorry that I have only just entered the Chamber: I have been involved with the Home Affairs Select Committee.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Customs and Excise, who have exactly the same powers, are not subject to PACE, but have become so on the basis of a code? Section 78 of PACE gives the courts wide powers to exclude evidence, which they do if it does not conform with PACE. In practice, no problems will be created.

Mr. Cohen: I think that there is a potential for problems, but I sympathise with what the hon. Gentleman said about Customs and Excise. I think that the PACE rules governing evidence should apply to them as well as to the police.
Under the Bill, there is a danger that two routes will be taken. Either the police will meet the tests of PACE, or, if they can get the security services to do the job for them, they will bypass those standards. It is possible that the police and the security services will exercise undue powers on lawyers, doctors and journalists, interfering with their professional and confidential relationships with clients—or sources, in the case of journalists.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth has raised the issue. It deserves proper answers from the Minister of State.

Mr. Maclean: Having heard what the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) had to say, I realise that there is no difference of substance or principle between us.
Relevant aspects of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act are already kept under regular review, and it is entirely proper for the legislation to be kept up to date to ensure that it remains relevant and workable without our rushing in to make hasty and ill-considered changes. That takes place without the impetus of a compulsion to review the legislation every six months or two years. Only recently, for example, the codes of practice governing a variety of police procedures have been updated.
Let us briefly consider what is relevant. PACE regulates police powers. Members of the Security Service will not have police powers; their role will be to support and assist the police, not to replace them. We should not adapt the requirements of PACE wholesale to suit the convenience of the Security Service. PACE also covers

criminal evidence, and that will clearly be relevant to the Security Service. Indeed, it is already relevant: the Security Service already has experience of working with other law enforcement agencies or prosecutors in respect of its other functions. That has resulted in some important and successful prosecutions in a counter-terrorism context.
Aspects of PACE will be relevant to the Security Service's new function. Members of the service are certainly subject to the law, and I assure the House that the position will be kept under review. I am sure that the Directors-General of the Security Service and the National Criminal Intelligence Service will want to ensure that the Security Service's support for the law enforcement agencies is effective; that was certainly the Government's wish and the wish of the Committee, and I think that it was the wish of hon. Members on both sides of the House. Equally, we must ensure that there are effective systems of accountability.
I can assure the House that, if any obstacles or anomalies emerge—whether within days, months or years of the changes taking place—that threaten operational effectiveness or accountability, we shall consider what needs to be done. This will be an on-going process and we shall keep it under constant review. It is not one that occurs after an arbitrary period has elapsed. For that reason, I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's amendment, but I can see no real difference of principle between us.

6 pm

Mr. Michael: With the leave of the House, the Minister made an important statement and made explicit something that we had understood which came out of our discussions in Committee—namely, that, in its activities, the Security Service will not have or use the powers of the police. I am pleased that that has been placed on the record, and it is quite clearly the intention of the House.
I am pleased that the Minister gave an undertaking to keep under review the matter of the Director General of the Security Service and the designated chief police officer. If in the fullness of time the public express concern about their joint activities, I am sure that the Home Affairs Select Committee will consider whether it needs to consider the matter and undertake its responsibilities on behalf of the House.
For the time being, in the light of the Minister's assurance that the matter will be kept under review in the way the House wishes, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

FUNCTIONS OF SECURITY SERVICE

Mr. Cohen: I beg to move amendment No. 2. in page 1, line 9, at end insert
';except that the Service shall not so act with regard to any industrial relations dispute unless that dispute involves any offence for which a person who has attained the age of twenty-one and has no previous convictions could reasonably be expected to be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of three years or more.'
I intend, through the amendment, to keep the Security Service out of industrial disputes, except, as in all walks of life, where serious crime has occurred. In the vast number of industrial disputes, there is no serious crime, so there is no case for Security Service involvement.
Under the proposed legislation, warrants will be signed by Ministers to allow Security Service involvement in investigating serious crime, which is defined as an offence that carries a sentence of three years or more when committed by someone without a previous conviction. That approach should also be applied to the Security Service's role in industrial relations. Currently, it can just claim that it is countering subversion and thus can become involved in industrial disputes. That is wrong. There would be cases in which the Security Service could become involved. Serious personal assaults and serious Luddism would be covered by the three-year serious crime rule, although I see no reason why the police could not handle such cases, as they have in the past.
The Security Service should not be involved in industrial disputes, which it regards as subversion. MI5 has no justifiable role in mainstream industrial relations and disputes. It wastes a lot of time on industrial disputes. It defines subversion as action
intended to overthrow or undermine parliamentary democracy by political, industrial, or violent means.
It says that its role is to investigate
infiltration within, for example, a legitimate protest group.
That gives it carte blanche to infiltrate and act against any legitimate organisation, such as a trade union. Counter-subversion can include undermining, smearing and hounding what it perceives to be political opponents, and manipulating the media for that purpose.
I repeat that the Security Service should be kept out of industrial disputes. There are not many industrial disputes at the moment, but let us look at what could be considered an industrial dispute. The nurses are aggrieved over their rotten 2 per cent. pay award from the Government. Should the Security Service be involved in that dispute? I do not think that teachers will be involved in an industrial dispute, but they are concerned about their pay and the Government's cuts in education funding. The Security Service should not have a role there. The car workers at Ford have to settle a pay dispute at the moment which could break the Government's inflation policy, but, again, the Security Service should not be involved. Civil servants at the Department of Social Security are concerned about their conditions of employment, which the Government seek to worsen—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The amendment is fairly tightly drawn. It specifically says "industrial relations dispute". It is not about a catalogue of potential or past disputes.

Mr. Cohen: I take your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but if they became industrial disputes, under the clause in the proposed legislation that deals with subversion, MI5 could become involved, and that would be a great waste of time and money.
MI5 is also biased. It is always against the workers in industrial disputes, regardless of the merits or justice of the case. They are seen as upsetting the status quo, and the establishment's position, including that of the employer, is what MI5 thinks has to be fought for. It has a long record of being anti-labour.
During the cold war, the whole labour movement was seen as subversive. That was ridiculous. There were, of course, communist and Soviet sympathisers in the trade union movement, but they were always a minority in

numbers and influence. Even they were not motivated to overthrow the state by revolution or general strike. Their motivation was to improve conditions for their fellow working men and women. That was and remains an acceptable and laudable motivation.
Many within the trade union movement opposed them and had different ideas about how best to help their fellow workers and trade union members. That certainly was not the motivation of MI5. If those few sympathisers, which were the justification for MI5's involvement, were so influential, why was there only one general strike in 1926, one of the leaders of which was the old right winger, Ernest Bevin? That strike was certainly not organised with the aim of overthrowing the state, and there were no subsequent general strikes.
I cannot think of a single strike that aimed to overthrow the state, and it is a deliberate lie peddled by the Government and MI5 to justify the latter's role. They pretend not to understand that industrial disputes are limited to the aims of the workers involved, that, invariably, they are about pay, jobs and conditions of work, and that a trade union cannot enforce a course of action that its members do not want and will not support.
Industrial action is unsustainable without the support of the members of the trade union. Workers who take industrial action do so for their own vested interests, and their motivations are limited to that. I do not believe that it is for the state to take sides against them in such a dispute. The cold war has now ended, so who do the Government think that trade unions are trying to subvert? That is an interesting question and the Minister should respond to it. I suspect that, if he does, he will be striking at the heart of the legitimate democratic process, but it will be hard to find a reasonable answer. I do not think that the state should interfere.
Conservatives continually tell us that they believe in free markets and the free play of forces in society and the economy. Those forces include capital and labour. Why do that philosophy and approach not apply in industrial relations? Why is MI5 authorised to intervene against the worker? Why is it on the side of the employer? That free play of forces is part of the democratic political process. Industrial action in support of pay and jobs is as legitimate as the role of the bosses in a democracy. MI5 should not interfere. It is a worker's fundamental right to withdraw his labour if he is unfairly treated or picked upon by an employer. Doing that in combination with workmates is the only economic clout that workers have. They do not engage in it lightly, because it also clouts them economically.
It could be argued that MI5 has a role on behalf of the state because the state is an employer, but I reject that argument. The state should have the same tools as any other employer, no more and no less. It should not have access to a secret army that could attack or undermine trade unionists in its employ. The state and its workers pursue different aims. Workers aim for wages, jobs and conditions of work, and the state pursues political policies. Employment laws can be used for the state's purposes and using a secret force to crush opposition by its workers would be over the edge for a decent democratic Government. It is the same tool as that used by a dictator who will not allow any opposition and will intimidate and go beyond the law to enforce his will. Using MI5 in industrial disputes strikes at the heart of democracy.

Mr. Winnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that democracies, fortunately, have survived despite all the industrial disputes that have occurred, while dictatorships, such as that in the former Soviet Union for which I am not in mourning, and fascist, military, communist and other dictatorships have collapsed despite all their efforts to stop people demonstrating, engaging in industrial disputes and being denied the rights that my hon. Friend mentions?

Mr. Cohen: That is a good point, and it shows that the industrial relations process and industrial disputes are an organic part of a free and democratic society.
A major example of MI5's role in industrial relations was to be found in the miners' strike of 1984–85. The miners had purely industrial aims, which were to save their jobs, their mines and their communities. They were not out to overthrow the Government of the day. In hindsight, their aims are more clearly seen. The state attacked them out of revenge for previous industrial disputes that the miners had won. Defeating the miners was the great Tory obsession which led to that dispute. But the obsession was that of a political party and not that of the nation.
When Baroness Thatcher referred to the miners as the enemy within, she meant that they were the political enemy of the Conservative party, not of the state. The miners were part of the state, which the Government and all political parties are supposed to represent. But billions of pounds were spent on defeating them, and MI5 played a significant and active role in that.
That has been clearly catalogued in Seamus Milne's book "The Enemy Within—MI5, Maxwell and the Scargill Affair". I shall give some examples from that. The Daily Mirror and "The Cook Report" campaign of disinformation on Central Television said that the miners' leader used Libyan hardship donations to pay off his mortgage and that Soviet miners' donations were used by him for personal purposes. That was disinformation and downright lies by MI5.
Informers and agents provocateurs were planted. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) spoke in the House about the role of Richard Windsor, the NUM chief executive. The purpose was to destabilise and sabotage the union and Windsor was at the centre of a series of damaging controversies at the NUM. He was filmed with Libyans and made false accusations of corruption against the union leaders. According to Milne, the operations of the agents provocateurs against striking miners included action at the Polkemmet colliery in Scotland, which was flooded and lost during the dispute, raising local tension.
There was mass surveillance and phone tapping and bugging. The County hotel at Bloomsbury where Mick McGahey, the miners' leader stayed, was bugged and so was the North Sea fish restaurant, Leigh street, London near the NUM's headquarters where the left wingers on the executive met to discuss tactics.
Throughout the strike the security services leased the building opposite the NUM headquarters at St. James's house, Sheffield, and every NUM branch and lodge secretary had his phone monitored. Road blocks and restrictions on the freedom of movement were co-ordinated with the police. Miners' car number records were specifically made available from DVLC records and monitored on computer. Electronic surveillance networks were set up to track the movement of miners' funds and the activities of union officials. In addition, a breakaway miners union, was assisted.
6.15 pm
According to Milne, in 1970 one man and one assistant were based in MI5 monitoring the trade unions—and that was during the cold war. By the early 1980s, MI5's industrial unit had 12 desk officers backed by a small army of handlers, agents, informers and technical and secretarial staff. Hundreds of trade union officials and activists were signed up in the 1970s. Labour correspondents and broadcasters were also targeted.
What is the point of continuing this subversive activity at great cost to interfere with the trade unions in pursuit of their legitimate activities? The cold war has ended. When they take industrial action, trade unions are limited in their aims and aspirations. Are the nurses to be regarded as subversive if they go on strike? Let us limit MI5's role to terrorism and serious crime, and get it out of industrial relations and industrial disputes.

Mr. Dalyell: I strongly support the amendment that has been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen). As far as I know, Seamus Milne's book has never been rebutted; nor has he, on anything that was in that book, been taken to a court of law. In those circumstances, the presumption must be that what he wrote was accurate. If it is, it is a disgrace to the British state.
My support for my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton is born of personal experience of the miners' strike. During that strike, I went to Polkemmet pit in my constituency every Monday morning at 4.30. My hon. Friend mentioned that pit, which at the time was the second biggest of the Scottish pits and the supplier of coking coal to Ravenscraig. At that time, it was deemed to have a regular market for the foreseeable future.
Doubtless, relationships were different in Yorkshire, where officers came in from the Metropolitan police, but relations between the Scottish police and the miners were generally good, partly because many of the police officers came from mining families. In those circumstances, those of us with public responsibilities were able to play our part in maintaining a civilised relationship with a view to protecting the pit.
I shall never forget the morning when it became clear that six picket breakers were operating. The late Superintendent Donald MacKinnon, an equable highlander, was incandescent with anger. He was not angry with me and he came up to me and said, "What on earth has Stella Whitehouse to do with this?" A lot of people knew Stella Rimington by her maiden name—she had been a student at Edinburgh university—which was Whitehouse. She worked for the security services, and I do not know to this day what on earth Stella Whitehouse or Rimington had to do with the miners' strike.
It was not her business to get involved and to create industrial mayhem, and that question has never been answered. I am quite convinced that the head of MI5, as she was to become, took a prominent part—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not relating his remarks to the amendment. He must do so, rather than just make assertions across the Floor of the House.

Mr. Dalyell: It relates to the security services intervening in an industrial dispute.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman made one short reference to that, and proceeded to make


extensive allegations about something that occurred years ago. In particular, he has made allegations in relation to an individual. While it is perfectly proper to make allusions to individuals, it is not appropriate to make such remarks across the Floor of the House.

Mr. Dalyell: I have said this before across the Floor of the House. The role of the security services in industrial situations is highly relevant. The incident to which I referred occurred back in 1984, and the lady in question is about to retire. But the problem is not over, and I will tell the Minister why. We read month after month in one form or another—I do not know with what truth—that David Hart is advising the Government. I do not know what a man like that is doing at the heart of the British Government. My hon. Friends should not be under any illusions—this problem goes on and on, and my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton is quite right to raise it.

Mr. Michael: I shall be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister would be wise to accept the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that these matters run deep not only among many people in industry, but among many people in the police, and that constitutes the root of the concerns that the police expressed to many Members as we approached the Bill.
The matter has been dealt with by recognising problems and ensuring that the House decides on the right way to deal with them. For that reason, it will help everyone if we learn from the past and if the Minister gives us confidence in the arrangements that he is seeking to establish in the Bill. It will be extremely helpful if, in response to the amendment, he tells the House that it is the strong intention of the Government that the resources of MI5 should be devoted to the fight against terrorism and, under the powers in the Bill, to helping the police in the fight again serious and organised crime. Those resources should not be used in the field of industrial relations. There is a widespread belief that power was misused during the 1980s, and the Minister will show wisdom if he provides clarity in the intentions of the Government in relation to the legislation. I invite him to do so.

Mr. Maclean: I shall attempt to rise to the hon. Gentleman's challenge to show wisdom, and I shall not rake over the coals of the other matters that have been mentioned in this short debate. The best and simplest way for me to respond would be to remind the House of my remarks in Committee. All the relevant parties, including the police and the Security Service, envisage the same role for the Security Service as the man on the Clapham omnibus would expect—that it should act against those crimes where its special skills and expertise can most effectively be employed, meaning organised crime.
Industrial disputes do not constitute organised crime—I do not think they do, and that is obviously the view of the Opposition. The man on the Clapham omnibus would not consider industrial disputes to be organised crime. There is no question of the security services becoming involved in cases that are not thought to involve serious crime. Nor can the Security Service be a political football. As I am sure the hon. Member for Leyton is aware, the Security Service Act 1989 places a specific duty on the

Director-General of the Security Service to ensure that the service takes no action to further the interests of any political party.

Mr. Winnick: Do we understand from the Minister's remarks that, whatever happened in the past—my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow made an important reference to what occurred in the 1980s—the security services will under no circumstances be involved in industrial disputes in the future? That is an important question that relates to the amendment. I understand that the Minister gave that assurance. So that I do not misunderstand him, I would be glad if he would confirm that that is the position.

Mr. Maclean: I am not sure that I can put it any better than I have just done. We had a discussion in Committee on what was meant by "organised and serious crime". At one point, we had a discussion—I can assure the House that it was relevant—about large grey elephants. We agreed that although we would all know an elephant if we saw it, we might not be able to describe it. "Organised crime" is not a unique or specialist definition. Although the Bill talks about "serious crime", we meant "organised crime" to be the sort of concept that the man on the Clapham omnibus would understand.
Whatever organised crime may be—whether it involves drugs or gun-running, which is highly organised—it is my view that industrial disputes cannot and do not construe organised crime. I would not therefore envisage the Security Service working against the nurses or the other groups to which Opposition Members referred on the basis of "organised crime".

Mr. Winnick: The amendment states:
the Service shall not so act with regard to any industrial relations dispute".
Is the Minister assuring us that the Security Service will not intervene in industrial disputes? That is all I am asking.

Mr. Maclean: I am not sure whether I can go as wide as the hon. Gentleman is suggesting. The Bill deals with the Security Service's attempts to deal with organised crime. I have said to the House and in Committee that I cannot see circumstances in which the Security Service—bearing in mind that it would be tasked by the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the police—would become involved in an industrial dispute, as we commonly understand it, as that would not be regarded as organised crime, as we commonly understand it. On that basis, I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.

Mr. Cohen: I thought that the Minister was generous in taking account of my sentiments—and, I think, those of the House—in his statement. But when my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) questioned him, he became a little less clear. I appreciate his point that the security services would not be involved in industrial disputes in relation to organised crime, but they still have a massive opportunity for intervention in relation to subversion, which can be whatever they describe it as. They have interpreted that in the wrong way in the past.
The F2 section of the service was set up purely for industrial relations purposes. If the service was genuinely moving away from involvement in industrial disputes, the


Minister should have commented on the reorganisation or, perhaps, abolition of that section. We did not hear that, however, and those points must be clarified.

Mr. Michael: There is a tendency in difficult discussions on legislation such as this to enter into philosophical discussions. We know that, in the past, there have been occasions when the service entered into areas that the Government or Parliament had not intended. Is not the most simple message that could come from the debate the one that my hon. Friend sought to put across in tabling the amendment—that it is not the intention of Parliament that the Security Service, as a result of the legislation, should enter into industrial relations disputes?

Mr. Cohen: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes a relevant point. I hope that that message will go out clearly from this House to the Security Service—

Mr. Winnick: My hon. Friend mentioned, in relation to industrial disputes, F2 within MI5. Will he bear it in mind that among those who were targeted was our hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) who, with Patricia Hewitt, took her case to the European Court and won? It is important to note that people who were hardly revolutionaries—indeed, anti-revolutionaries—were targeted.

Mr. Cohen: That point is well made by my hon. Friend. As hon. Members have said, there will continue to be an issue if MI5 is perceived to be involved in industrial disputes, as it was in the 1980s.
I am prepared to withdraw the amendment so that the House can move on to consider other important parts of the Bill. I hope that we will not have to return to this issue. If we do, I assure the House that I will take it up—I hope with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) at the Government Dispatch Box. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Michael: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 17, at end insert—
'(2A) After subsection (3) of section 2 of that Act there shall be added—
(3ZA) The arrangements referred to in subsection (2)(c) above shall specify that any request for support made by a law enforcement agency or a police force shall be subject to the approval of the person designated in accordance with subsection (3B) below who shall be responsible for agreeing to the specific arrangements of any operation or operators resulting from each individual request, which shall include arrangements as to the accountability of the persons and, bodies involved.".'.
This is a straightforward amendment, which would ensure that any request for support from MI5 made by a law enforcement agency—whether a police force or other agency—will be subject to the approval of the chief constable designate.
For those hon. Members who did not take part in our discussions in Committee, I need to highlight some progress that we made, that is, making clear the responsibility of an individual, to be designated by the

Home Secretary, for agreeing arrangements with the head of the Security Service. That is an important arrangement because it makes explicit the responsibility of an individual, involved in the police side of the exercise and on behalf of law enforcement agencies, to agree arrangements to bring in the Security Service in support of the fight against organised and serious crime.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: I am following my hon. Friend's remarks with interest. He will have received, as I have, a letter from the much-respected chief constable of Gwent, who seeks an assurance that the principles described by my hon. Friend are laid down in the Bill. Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the Bill meets the points raised by the chief constable?

Mr. Michael: That is precisely what we have been drawing out in Committee. It is difficult to get all the principles we want written into the Bill. It is important that, wherever possible, the important elements should be in the Bill. Where there is any doubt, there should be absolute clarity about what the House intends. That is why it is right to raise the important issues to which my hon. Friend referred and which were raised also by the Intelligence and Security Committee and a variety of chief constables and others. These matters must be absolutely clear. It has been an important search for agreement on the principles that underlie the involvement of MI5 in supporting the police and other law enforcement agencies in the fight against organised crime.
I use those phrases carefully because that is what we are seeking to do, although some of those words do not actually appear in the Bill. The reason for that is that we agreed with the Government's objective to have a simple piece of legislation that would not constantly be chewed over in the courts, with lawyers dancing on the point of a pinhead. I am pleased to see the Home Secretary nodding his agreement with that description of the profession to which he belongs.
We want clarity so that we can ensure that the public are protected, that the police are clear about their responsibilities and that there is no interference from the Security Service in the role of the police.

Mr. Rowlands: The point made to us is that there needs to be transparency. I ask my hon. Friend—and perhaps the Minister will also answer—whether the Bill is transparent about responsibilities and about the role of MI5 and its relationship with the police.

Mr. Michael: Yes, I believe that it is now. The mechanism that we put forward, which was debated in Committee and then agreed in a slightly different form, means that the chief constable designated by the Home Secretary will be the guardian at the gate. That is an important change.
It was also clear in our debates that we were considering Security Service involvement in the fight against organised and serious crime. Although only the phrase "serious crime" appears in the Bill, the Government's and Parliament's intention for how that power should be used was made absolutely clear.
There was also agreement on the five principles set out during proceedings of the Intelligence and Security Committee: that the primacy of responsibility for


countering organised crime should lie and remain with the law enforcement agencies; that in respect of intelligence work the Security Service should work through the NCIS and the existing co-ordinating groups—and in relation to that the Home Secretary has agreed that the chief constable who acts as Director-General of the NCIS should be the chief constable designate; that the work of the Security Service should be in support of the law enforcement agencies, not self-tasking—that horrible word that the police tend to use; that the skills and the full range of abilities of the Security Service should be drawn on, but only in support of the police; and finally—an important point that I mention in passing—that the Security Service should bear the cost of its own contribution. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) would not want me to leave that out, and neither would the chief constable of Gwent.
The amendment takes the agreement and understanding which we reached in Committee, and which we put clearly on the record, a little further. It is that, in making arrangements, the chief constable
shall be responsible for agreeing to the specific arrangements of any operation or operators resulting from each individual request, which shall include arrangements as to the accountability of the persons and, bodies involved.
It is the search for transparency and accountability, on which there is no difference across the Floor, on which we understandably want to push Ministers a little further, to gain greater clarity than there was at earlier stages of the Bill.
I ask the Minister to agree to the amendment or at least to confirm that the way that I described the relationship is the Government's intention—and therefore that of the House—of how it should work.

Mr. Maclean: I certainly agree with the description given by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), which largely encompasses the way we expect the arrangements to work. In fact, the way in which the hon. Gentleman answered the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) means that I can scrap a couple of pages of my notes, as the hon. Gentleman made some of my speech for me.
There has been general agreement in the House about the principles underlying the Bill. Such disagreement and debate as there has been, both on Second Reading and in Committee, has been on how best to give effect to the principles. We must produce legislation that will strike a proper balance between the right amount of control and accountability over the work of the Security Service in pursuit of its new function and ensuring that it is able to operate effectively, with the risk of spurious legal challenge minimised.
The way that the Government have sought to strike that balance is by the provision in the Bill placing a new duty on the director-general to ensure that there are arrangements for co-ordinating the activities of the Security Service with those of the law enforcement agencies that it will be supporting. As a result of an amendment that the Government introduced in Committee, those co-ordination arrangements have to be agreed with a designated person. It has been made clear by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary that he intends to designate the Director-General of the

NCIS. That requirement for agreed arrangements will ensure that the Security Service will not be able to act independently. However, it is important that we should understand what those arrangements are designed to do and, therefore, how we envisage the role of the Director-General of the NCIS.
In moving the amendment to which I have just referred, I paraphrased a part of the report to the Home Secretary that was prepared by the interdepartmental and interagency working group, which was set up to consider a role for the Security Service in supporting the law enforcement agencies in their work against organised crime. I should like to repeat some of what I said on that occasion.
The Security Service's contribution will be delivered through existing structures. That means co-ordination through the NCIS and membership of the relevant groups. The Security Service will accept tasking on organised crime from the NCIS and relevant co-ordinating groups. Those arrangements should not replace or prejudice existing bilateral arrangements between the security services and other agencies, such as Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, the Secret Intelligence Service and Government communications headquarters, Cheltenham.
The point is that although the NCIS clearly has a pivotal role, it is possible that the overarching arrangements will allow for sub-arrangements between the Security Service and other law enforcement agencies. A good example of that may be Customs and Excise, with which the Security Service will want to work closely on international drug trafficking. The Director-General of the NCIS will clearly want and need to be aware of the broad spheres in which the service is supporting Customs and Excise. The scheme for tasking, to which I referred, will ensure that.
However, the Director-General of the NCIS may not need to be aware of every operational detail that flows from the arrangement with Customs and Excise. Indeed, I suggest that the role that the amendment envisages for the Director-General of the NCIS would be very time-consuming and would take him and his staff into spheres where the Security Service already enjoys effective bilateral arrangements with other bodies.

Mr. Beith: When we discussed in Committee whether it would always be possible for individual chief constables to be told that an operation was taking place, the Minister argued that that would be difficult—especially when people were moving quickly around the country—when reliance was placed on the head of the NCIS to be the route by which chief constables would, in some cases, be made aware that something was happening in their area. If the Director-General of the NCIS does not know what is happening, because it has all been delegated to Customs and Excise and the Security Service, he will not be in a position to alert chief constables.

Mr. Maclean: The right hon. Gentleman is reading too much into my remarks, and he is perhaps inadvertently exaggerating the position. I said that I expected the NCIS to be the funnel—the route of communication—between the chief constables and individual forces, at the bottom end, which would pass tasking requests up through the NCIS, to be agreed with the Security Service. The NCIS would then, of course, be the funnel of communication back to the chief constables. I picked on the odd case. We


suggested that it would be in rare circumstances, such as the surveillance of a vehicle that was passing through different police areas, that it might not be appropriate instantly to inform the chief constable.
While the amendment of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth seeks to put more clarity into the situation, I am afraid that it would be unnecessarily prescriptive to expect the Director-General of the NCIS to have the sort of detail that the amendment envisages when, for example, Customs and Excise is operating perfectly correctly with the Security Service under the overarching arrangements of the Director-General of the NCIS. In those cases, the director-general may not want to have the control that the amendment envisages.

Mr. Dalyell: The combination of the Minister's mention of rare circumstances and his mention of Customs and Excise requires me to ask him to forgive my curiosity. On Saturday night, there was a detailed description of Sir Brian Unwin's astonishment when he was called by the Cabinet Secretary to a meeting, with other permanent secretaries, on the unmentionable subject—I should be ruled out of order if I went into Scott. However, that combination raises the question of the relationship between Customs and Excise and the security services, because, when asked, the Cabinet Secretary is reported to have said, "It is perfectly normal for Customs and Excise to be consulted." When Sir Brian Unwin was asked, he said, "It is the first time that I have ever been summoned to a meeting by a Cabinet Secretary." Could some light be shed on the fascinating subject of what that relationship is?

Mr. Maclean: Certainly not by me, but no doubt someone will write a book about it one day. It may be an interesting subject, but it is irrelevant to the point that has been made in the debate. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth has moved a reasonable amendment, which seeks to provide greater detail. I have pointed out that it would be slightly dangerous to go into that detail.

Mr. Rowlands: In Committee, the Minister made the key statement that the NCIS
will inform the chief constables that NCIS has been tasked".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 1 February 1996; c. 67.]
and that it would act as a gateway. That could be a formal procedure, or it could be a process by which chief constables were not only informed but involved. Does the Minister mean that the NCIS will inform in the real sense or that that will be only a matter of courtesy?

Mr. Maclean: I mean, in the real sense. The hon. Gentleman should bear it in mind that the requests come from the police service in the first place. It is going to the NCIS. If the NCIS should determine through its machinery that there is a tasking requirement that involves the Security Service, in general it is inconceivable that the chief constables who made the request for assistance in the first place will not be properly informed that the service is operating. However, I built in the caveat that there might be some circumstances in which it would be logistically impossible or not sensible to inform chief constables that the Security Service was, for example, passing through their area.
I respect the intentions of the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. It seeks more clarity. The only danger is that it is slightly more detailed and would allow lawyers to dance on a pinhead. The hon. Gentleman said that that was also his fear. For those reasons, I cannot accept the amendment.

Mr. Michael: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. He has helped the House by expressing the Government's level of clarity in relation to what is intended by the Bill.
The point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) is very important. The discussion about what information should be available to chief constables was assisted by the Minister saying that, when there was a surveillance operation that went up a motorway through several police areas, one would obviously not expect information to be provided to each chief constable whose area was involved in the operation. However, one would expect that in the normal course of events chief constables would be aware of the operations in their areas. The intention is that the chief constable designate would agree such an arrangement with the head of the intelligence service. Therefore, I think that the House's intentions are clear.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) put his finger on an issue to which the House needs to return, because it goes outside the scope of the Bill. The issue is the expanding role of officers of Customs and Excise, which has recently expanded without the scrutiny of the House.

Mr. Dalyell: I must be extremely scrupulous about the facts on that issue. I was referring to a reconstruction that may or may not be factual, as put forward by Channel 4 on Saturday night. I do not know that Sir Brian Unwin said any such thing. The point is that he is purported and reported to have said it. If he did say it, it raises extremely interesting questions—does it not, Home Secretary?

Mr. Michael: I was not referring to reconstructions on television or anywhere else. I was referring to the accountability, intentions and expansion of Customs and Excise, which is an issue that came out of our discussions in Committee. At an appropriate time, I believe that the House should pay attention to that issue.
As for the amendment, it is clear, as I understand it—I am certain that the Minister will tell me if I am wrong—that our intentions in moving it are shared by him and that they reflect the intentions of the House. In the light of that, my intention is not to seek to write it into the Bill, but that the debate should have helped to clarify the House's intentions. In the light of the Minister's encouraging and helpful response to the points that we raised, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4

SHORT TITLE AND COMMENCEMENT

Mr. Beith: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, leave out lines 23 and 24 and insert—
'(2) Subject to subsection (3) below, this Act shall come into force on such day or days as the Secretary of State may appoint by order made by statutory instrument, and different orders may appoint different days for different sections of this Act.


(3) No order under subsection (2) above shall be made in respect of section 2 above unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that any power to be extended to, or obligation to be placed upon, the Security Service by that section is a power or obligation (as the case may be) which also extends to or is placed upon police forces.'.
Amendment No. 1 relates to one of the two remaining problems with the Bill which I said have not yet been solved and it is causes particular anxiety to serving police officers. It is the fact that the Security Service will be able to use the warrant powers that it has under section 5 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994 in relation to its new function of assisting the police in the pursuit of organised crime. Police officers do not have such powers, and more than one chief constable has told me that he is very unhappy about the Security Service being given powers in relation to organised crime that the police do not have.
The paradox is that, at least when the Security Service uses its powers to carry out its existing function, some safeguards are operative. If the police act in a similar way, as they have felt obliged to do over the years, they have neither proper legal powers nor a system to safeguard the public to ensure that the powers are not abused.
The problem arises primarily in relation to eavesdropping on, or interference with, property which officers need to enter to carry out their operation. Of course, it does not arise with the interception of telephones. Indeed, in a way, the system of telephone interception is a better model because, although the system has its critics, there is a parallel system operating for the police and the Security Service. However, the absence of a privacy law in this country means that various types of eavesdropping—those that do not involve entering a property—may not be illegal at all. In other words, anyone—not just the Security Service or the police—could eavesdrop for any purpose. That is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs which needs to be attended to some other time.
The Bill will directly affect the use of the power to enter property for the purpose of eavesdropping. Under the Bill, the Security Service could do that when working on organised crime, as it already can for other purposes under the Intelligence Services Act 1994. If the police and the Security Service were involved in a joint operation, it could happen that the police officers could not take that action whereas the Security Service could.
However, there is a further twist to the problem. The police do in fact carry out such activities and it is well known that they have done so for many years. They do it by getting authorisation from a chief constable or from a senior officer in the force acting on his behalf. It would be open to the Security Service to say that the police system is much simpler because the police do not have to go to the Home Secretary for a warrant but can proceed quietly with the agreement of a chief constable.
The Security Service might ask why it does not proceed on the police system. The safeguards included in the Bill would then not operate at all. That is one reason why the Bill is unsatisfactory, but the primary reason is that we are giving to the Security Service, for the purpose of its work on organised crime, a power that is accepted as necessary in some circumstances but that we are not giving to the police. From the police's point of view, that is profoundly unsatisfactory, for various reasons.
First, police officers engaged in such activities are on the very borders of the law and lay themselves open to charges of criminal or civil trespass. They can only hope

that their chief constable will protect them because he has given them the authority to act in that way. Protecting them, however, simply means giving evidence in their defence or as to their good character. It does not alter the fact that they lay themselves open to criminal or civil proceedings while acting in a way in which the Security Service could have acted for the benefit of the public because it feared that some major organised criminal activity was taking place.
Secondly, when the police carry out such functions, the public are not safeguarded as they are by the Security Service warrants granted by the Home Secretary. It is my understanding that, in cases of telephone interception, the Home Secretary examines the warrants personally and that they are carefully scrutinised.
We must have a system that the police can use, that has legal authority and that safeguards the public. It is logical that the same system should be operated by the police and the Security Service when they are dealing with organised crime.
The root of the problem that we confront in the Bill is that we are dealing with the Security Service aspect before we have introduced important measures that are needed to help the police. While I argued, in the context of the recent bombing, that it would be possible to defer the Bill while further work was done, I was also thinking that I should have been happier had the Government introduced ahead of the Bill the measures that the police feel are needed.
I suspect that more could be achieved by ensuring that the national structure of the police was in order, that the NCIS was on a proper legal footing, that the Scottish Criminal Intelligence Office's relations with the NCIS were on a proper legal footing and that the warrant system was such that the police could use it properly and freely. If we had done that before introducing the Bill, we might have done more to support the police. Of course, it would also have then been much easier to slot the Bill into place.
The amendment seeks to solve the problem by deferring the bringing into effect of the Security Service's ability to use its new powers against organised crime until action has been taken to ensure that the police have parallel powers to deal with organised crime. If it is not accepted, we shall be doing the police and the public a disservice.
There can be no doubt that working on organised crime is liable to bring the Security Service into contact and possible conflict with an innocent member of the public to a much greater extent than hitherto. We ought therefore to ensure that the appropriate safeguards are in place. The Security Service has a system of safeguards, but trying to operate it alongside the system of dubious legality within which the police now carry out some surveillance operations is profoundly unsatisfactory.
In a spirit of support for the police, I ask the Home Secretary to recognise that he will not be helping the police if he continues to deny them a proper legal power to deal with organised crime and that he will make the situation more difficult and complicated if he sets the Security Service to work in this sphere in this way while the police do not have the same power.

Mr. Allason: Amendment No. 1 highlights an interesting loophole in the current cover given to intelligence officers and police officers. Interference with


property is, of course, an extremely serious matter, because it is one of our principles that an Englishman's home is his castle. It is fair to say that interference with property is a right that was exercised with dubious legality before the Security Services Act 1989. Certainly, it happened on very few occasions.
I remember being told by a Security Service officer how he was involved in the search of John Vassall's flat in Dolphin square shortly before an arrest was made. It involved getting clearance from the permanent under-secretary, and the Director-General of the Security Service was biting his fingernails down to the quick, hoping that his personnel were in and out of the flat as quickly as possible without coming into contact with any members of the public.
That particular vignette illustrates how seriously the Security Service took its role on that occasion. It was a right that it exercised apparently under the royal prerogative—a very unsatisfactory state of affairs—but it did so rarely. Nowadays, of course, interference with property is a euphemism for planting bugs. That does not involve a warrant under the Interception of Communications Act 1985, or any other telephone warrant. Although only half of any telephone conversation is heard in this instance, it is an extremely useful tool for surveillance and is widely used. However, as the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said, it becomes a very grey area when the police are involved.
Hitherto, the chief constable has been talked into issuing an interference order and has given the appropriate sanction. None of that has ever been challenged in law, but it is right that the procedure should be examined in more detail. Certainly, Security Service personnel were deeply unhappy prior to the 1989 Act. When asked what they would say if they were arrested and taken to a police station on a charge of burgling a house, they took the view that telling the charge sergeant that they had the protection of the royal prerogative would not get them very far.
The matter must be examined, especially given the new kinds of interception that are so common. Indeed, only a short time ago, a private telephone conversation was intercepted and no police action was taken even though it was clearly a most appalling invasion of privacy—albeit concerning a member of the royal family.
The matter cries out for legislation. The House owes the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed a debt of gratitude for highlighting such an important issue. The police are not happy about the state of affairs; technology has overtaken legislation.
While on the point of whether powers granted to the Security Service exceed those granted to the police, I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister for a second time whether he can clarify Home Office guidelines on the use of informants. On Second Reading, I said that there are very strict rules on the use of informants and that special branch has been governed by them since a inquiry was conducted in the late 1970s. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that, on joint police and Security Service operations, the Security Service will be subject to precisely the same Home Office guidelines as the police?

7 pm

Mr. Cohen: The amendment refers to the day the Act comes into force. I do not think that it should come into force until all those who should properly be consulted have been consulted. Has the Data Protection Registrar been consulted? Computing reported as recently as 18 January that the registrar's office had not been consulted and the article said that the magazine
would press for the security services to be subject to the same data protection rules as the police.
If the Data Protection Registrar has been consulted, what was the response?

Mr. Howard: The amendment relates to the arrangements for authorising intrusive surveillance operations by the police. At present, those operations must be personally authorised by the chief officer of police in accordance with Home Office guidelines. There is no evidence that the system is being abused, and I believe that it has served us well. The Government accept, however, that it needs to be brought up to date. On Second Reading, I was happy to say that a statutory system would be preferable. That was a recommendation of the Home Affairs Select Committee, and I do not dispute it.
To that end, we are discussing the options with the Association of Chief Police Officers and other interested parties. It is not straightforward; many complex issues must be resolved before we are in a position to present robust and workable proposals that do not inhibit the operation and effectiveness of the police. I can assure the House that the matter is being given urgent attention. We will bring forward proposals at the earliest opportunity, but we want to get it right.
The amendment does nothing to prevent chief officers from continuing to authorise such operations under the present administrative arrangements. It would merely prevent the Security Service from applying for property warrants in respect of its new serious crime function.
The amendment strikes me as being a very strange solution to a problem, which may affect police operations, since it seeks to deny the Security Service the right to a power equivalent to that possessed by the police when that power has a firm statutory basis, when it requires the personal authorisation of the Secretary of State, and when the exericise of it is scrutinised by an independent commissioner.

Mr. Beith: I hope that the Home Secretary will recognise that the narrow nature of the amendment is a direct result of the title of the Bill. If he had titled the Bill so that amendments on the police use of surveillance powers could have been tabled, the amendment would have covered the matter much more effectively.

Mr. Howard: That may be, but the fact remains that to say that we should not allow the Security Service to operate in a different way under the supervision of the holder of my office in the way I have just described is an extraordinary approach to a problem which the right hon. Gentleman has identified, which I acknowledge exists, and which affects the operations conducted by the police.
Throughout debates on the Bill, we have had cause to return to the key principles that will govern the involvement of the Security Service in work against serious crime. There has been a welcome consensus


among hon. Members that those key principles represent a very sensible basis on which to proceed. I should like to return to one of those principles. The Security Service should be able to draw on its full range of skills, capabilities and expertise. The amendment is directly counter to that agreed principle, because it would deny the Security Service the ability to use all its skills and capabilities.
Property warrants are used to authorise very intrusive actions, and clearly there must be rigorous controls on their use. We have those controls in place and they have worked very effectively in other functions of the Security Service. I do not accept any insinuation that the Security Service and the police will conspire to take advantage of the temporary differences between their respective safeguards. I would not expect chief constables to authorise intrusive surveillance operations for which a ministerial warrant could be obtained; nor would I expect the Security Service to flout the safeguards that surround its work.
We will bring forward proposals on new arrangements for the police as soon as we are ready to do so. To suggest that in the meantime we should all be deprived of the full extent of the contribution of the Security Service to the fight against serious organised crime seems gratuitously damaging and entirely unnecessary.
My right hon. Friend the Minister will write to my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) in response to the point that he raised, setting out the different guidelines that the Security Service has for its agents and those under which the police operate. On the point raised by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), my understanding is that consultations have taken place with the Data Protection Registrar.
It is perhaps characteristic of the Liberal Democrat party to advance half-baked solutions to a range of problems. The amendment is only quarter-baked, and I invite the House to reject it.

Mr. Straw: This important issue was raised on Second Reading, and I welcome the assurance that the Secretary of State gave that it will be examined in detail. Although I make no criticism of the way in which the matters have been dealt with up to now, the Secretary of State will be aware, and it is widely understood, that some chief constables are anxious about the new circumstances.
The amendment does not seem to be the most felicitously worded amendment that has ever been before the House. I welcome what the Secretary of State has said, so I certainly do not put on record our support for the amendment.

Mr. Beith: If anything was gratuitous, it was the Home Secretary's attempt to launch a political attack on an issue that the Intelligence and Security Committee felt should be resolved in the Bill: warranting powers for the Security Service that the police do not have. The Home Secretary knows perfectly well that the Bill was drafted in such a way as to preclude inclusion of, or a debate on, an amendment that would have conferred that proper balance of powers. The only way in which we could secure a debate on the Floor of the House on that important principle, which was made clear in the Intelligence and Security Committee's report, was to table an amendment that was in order. One of the Home Secretary's

colleagues, the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason), pointed out that it was desirable that the House should have such a debate. The debate has focused attention on an issue that remains a problem.
I am glad that the Home Secretary acknowledged that the problem exists, indicated that he was looking for a way to resolve it in discussion with ACPO, does not wish the Security Service to be precluded from using its powers, which, as I have conceded, are the subject of useful safeguards, and recognises that the amendment does not stop chief officers continuing to act in the way they are now doing, whether or not that is legal.
It would have been open to the Home Secretary all along to resolve the problem before dealing with the rest of the Bill. If the Home Secretary's or the Prime Minister's speech at party conference had included such resounding words as, "We will give the police the powers that they need to crack down on organised crime," there would still have been the same almost automatic cheer from the delegates at the conference, and a piece of legislation designed to serve that purpose would have appeared in the legislative timetable. It would have been a simple matter for the Home Secretary to adjust his speech accordingly. I am sure that he could have secured the agreement of the Leader of the House. We are dealing with a serious problem which senior police officers also regard as serious. In that respect, the Home Secretary has let down the police.

Mr. Howard: The right hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that. It may have been a simple matter to adjust my speech, but it would have been far from simple to adjust the legislation. The police, contrary to the impression given by the right hon. Gentleman, understand that. We are in discussion with the Association of Chief Police Officers. The police understand and recognise the importance of taking care over this matter, not rushing it, and getting it right. That is why they entirely understand the position that we have reached in relation to the timing of the legislation. Therefore, I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw any suggestion that the police are thirsting for the inclusion of powers in this legislation. On the contrary, they understand the need to take care and get it right.

Mr. Beith: We should get all the legislation right, including this Bill. In Committee, I quoted a chief constable who expressed his strong reservations about powers being given to the Security Service in the context of organised crime that were not being given to the police. That is on the record of the Committee's proceedings and the Home Secretary can read it.
As hon. Members on both sides of the House have said during the passage of the Bill, in some respects the process has been taken in the wrong order. That is why we are in our present position. That underlines the urgency of dealing with the need for appropriate police powers in this area. No amendment to the Bill could achieve that, and I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw this one.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Michael: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 24, at end add—
`(3) Section 1 of the Act shall be repealed twenty four months after the Act has come into force in accordance with subsection (2) above unless the body known at the time of this Act receiving Royal


Assent as the National Criminal Intelligence Service is within that period established upon a statutory basis and the person appointed as chief officer of that body is or was a chief constable who has been designated by the Secretary of State in accordance with subsection (3B) of section 2 of the Security Service Act 1989.'.
The amendment seeks to provide a proper legislative framework for the National Criminal Intelligence Service. It follows my earlier suggestion that a chief constable should be designated by the Home Secretary to be the guardian at the gate; to be the individual who agrees the arrangements under which the assistance of the Security Service can be given to the police in the fight against organised crime. The Home Secretary has promised to designate the chief constable who heads the NCIS as that individual and we support that.
On Second Reading, the Home Secretary promised to put the NCIS on a proper statutory basis. We welcome that announcement, too. The amendment simply seeks a time scale for it to be brought to fruition. It would be sensible for the Home Secretary to set as a target the next Parliament, if not this one.
If the Government bring forward proposals expeditiously to put the NCIS on a statutory basis, they will have the Opposition's co-operation in the same atmosphere of maturity and sensible discussion as has characterised debate on this Bill. Both sides of the House should be able to co-operate with such an arrangement, so there is no reason for a long delay.
We hope that the Minister will either accept the amendment or set a target for achieving proper incorporation of the NCIS into statute during the course of next year.

Mr. Maclean: I have considerable sympathy with the intention behind the amendment, but it would be unwise to pursue it. Throughout the Bill's passage, we have stressed that the involvement of the Security Service is part of a wider co-ordinated package of measures for tackling organised crime. I confirm that putting the NCIS on a clearer statutory footing is a fundamental part of the wider package. The Government have made a clear commitment to act on this, in parallel with the creation of a national crime squad to supplement the work being done by the existing regional crime squads.
I can assure the House and the hon. Gentleman that the Government want to legislate on those matters as soon as possible. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said on Second Reading, we hope to be in a position to introduce such legislation in the next Session, but these are complex matters, and many important questions are still to be resolved. We are currently engaged in discussions with ACPO and others on these points. It is important that the timing of that legislation should be determined by an agreement on the way forward and not by an artificially imposed deadline.
The amendment also seeks to reinforce the fact that the person to be designated by the Home Secretary for the purpose of agreeing co-ordination arrangements will be the Director-General of the NCIS. That is also something on which the Government have given a clear commitment. In Committee, I said that it is our firm intention to designate the director-general, emphasising the pivotal co-ordinating role that the NCIS is to play. I am happy to restate that commitment for the benefit of the House.
The amendment seeks to give statutory form to two clear commitments from the Government. Naturally, therefore, I would not demur from the underlying principles, but I would suggest that the amendment is unnecessary and would not enhance the Bill.

Mr. Beith: The Minister, perhaps for the purposes of shorthand, left a little unclear the situation with regard to Scotland. The Scottish Criminal Intelligence Office will continue to have a crucial role in Scotland and the NCIS will have to act as the funnel—if I may use the Minister's expression—through which co-ordination takes place, but all that needs to be part of the statutory basis on which the NCIS is set up.
The NCIS has no formal role in Northern Ireland at present, so it rests on some sort of liaison arrangement between its head and the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, unless some new arrangement is devised in statute. It is upon that somewhat shaky framework that some of the linkages in the Bill have to rest. The Minister must be aware of the concern.
Having said that, it would be churlish of me not to thank the Minister for the helpful way in which he has responded to many amendments and for the way in which he has managed to exclude partisan considerations in a way that the Home Secretary was not able to do.

Mr. Michael: The right hon. Gentleman manages to confuse rather than clarify the important issue that we have been trying to debate in the Chamber tonight.
I am pleased that the Minister has expressed the hope and intention of legislating next year, and I hope that he will keep to that. If, as has been our experience in the past few weeks, the Minister continues to listen to the Opposition as well as to ACPO, he will be able to achieve legislation in the coming Session without difficulty. In view of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Howard: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Consideration of the Bill has been marked by overwhelming support for the principles that lie behind it. Almost without exception, everyone has recognised that it is sensible to bring the particular skills and expertise that the Security Service possesses into the battle against organised crime in support of the law enforcement agencies.
The House needs no reminding of the menace that organised crime presents, and it is essential that we deploy all the resources that are available to combat it. I am grateful for the positive attitude that has been demonstrated on the Opposition and for their constructive support for the Bill.
When I opened the Second Reading debate, I set out the principles by which the involvement of the Security Service against serious and organised crime would be governed. No one has disputed those principles, but some concern was expressed that the original form of the Bill did not make them as explicit as it might. Accordingly,


the Government brought forward two important amendments in Committee—both of which enjoyed all-party support, for which I am grateful.
The first of the amendments, to clause 1(1), makes it explicit that the work of the Security Service in preventing and detecting serious crime will be carried out in support of the activities of the law enforcement agencies. There was never any doubt in our minds that primacy had to remain with the law enforcement agencies, because they have the leading role in the fight against serious crime. That has been made clear in the Bill.
The second amendment relates to the provision dealing with co-ordination arrangements. The Bill has now been amended to make it clear that the co-ordination arrangements will need to be agreed between the Director-General of the Security Service and a designated person who holds, or who has held, the office of chief officer of police. I intended to designate the Director-General of the National Criminal Intelligence Service for this purpose.
We hope to introduce legislation shortly to put the NCIS on a more clearly defined statutory footing and to enable us to enshrine in statute that the designated person should be the Director-General of the NCIS. In making this amendment, we are giving effect to one of the key principles that underlie the Bill—that the contribution of the Security Service will be co-ordinated through the NCIS and existing structures and that it will not operate independently.
This is a better Bill as a result of the amendments that were made to it in Committee. The primacy of the law enforcement agencies is now firmly enshrined in it. Beyond that, the provision relating to co-ordination arrangements, while not hampering the operational effectiveness of the Security Service, means that the director-general will not be able to settle on arrangements that do not meet the requirements of the agencies that the Security Service will support. We believe that we have substantially met the concerns that were expressed at an earlier stage by the Association of Chief Police Officers.
The Bill has enjoyed all-party support, and I hope that that will continue as it makes its way through another place. I look forward to being able to bring it into force as soon as practicable. Once enacted, the Bill will be an important tool in the fight against organised crime, which is a menace to society. It is vital that we bring all the available resources to bear against it.
The skills and experience of the Security Service have an important role to play when it comes to taking on drug traffickers, racketeers and money launderers. We must never forget that such criminals, though they may be far removed from their victims, cause human misery and suffering on a vast scale. They may be callous about the effects of their crimes but, when we see the effects in our constituencies, there can be no doubt that we must attach the highest priority to combating this evil menace.
The Bill represents the first element in a package of strong and effective measures against organised crime. By bringing it forward now, we are demonstrating that we are not prepared to delay in concentrating as much as effort as possible against those responsible for serious and organised crime.
I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Straw: On Second Reading, I said that the Labour party supports both the purpose and the principle of the Bill, and I am glad to reiterate that support tonight. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for what he said about the constructive attitude that has been shown towards the Bill. In particular, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) and to other of my hon. Friends who served on the Standing Committee for their support of the Bill.
I thank the Secretary of State and the Minister of State for their approach to the two amendments that my hon. Friend moved in Committee. Their amendments related to the Security Service's support of the police, who will continue to have a lead role, and to the arrangements for the tasking of the Security Service in this new and important area of work.
The Secretary of State referred to the dangers of organised crime. Sadly, all hon. Members have constituents who are addicted to hard drugs. The people who peddle those drugs in our constituencies are often only small-time drug dealers, but behind them lie highly organised criminal gangs. We have not yet reached the situation—I pray that we never will—where organised crime is a threat to our national security, but we do not have to look to Latin America or to Africa to see what can happen if organised crime goes unchecked. We need only look to a fellow member state of the European Union—to Italy—to see what can happen if organised crime is allowed to go unchecked.
Organised crime is a cancer that threatens the stability of society as well as the security of the nation. The Bill represents an important development in the fight against organised crime. I hope that we have reflected people's anxieties about the work of the security and intelligence services. Striking the balance right between allowing their work to continue effectively and ensuring proper civil liberties is always difficult. The Bill—although not perfect—has managed to achieve that balance. The Labour party also commends the Bill to the House.

Mr. Beith: On Second Reading, the Liberal Democrats expressed support for the purpose of the Bill but expressed reservations on a number of key points—echoing reservations that had been expressed by the Intelligence and Security Committee, strongly supported by chief constables and police officers. Unusually, two of the crucial reservations were met in Committee, and I agree that the Bill has been substantially improved as a result.
Of the remainder of the reservations, one rests heavily—it is a tenuous thread—on the ability of the Government to bring forward legislation in the next Session to achieve the legal status of the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the provision of warranting powers for the police for interventions on property. The Government have made their intentions clear, and there appears to be no disagreement, in principle, on those points. It remains to be seen whether the Government will deliver that legislation.
I remain dissatisfied with the way in which complaints by the public are dealt with. It will be necessary for the other place to examine further that point during its consideration of the Bill. We are not talking about a major


project. Although the Home Secretary got a little excited in his Third Reading speech, throughout most of the Bill, Ministers have made it clear that any transfer of resources involved at this stage is likely to be small, and that there will be no transfer if it is to the detriment of the battle against terrorism, particularly in the light of the IRA's renewed activities on the mainland.
The Bill is potentially helpful to the police in cracking down on some of the most sinister and dangerous organised crime, perpetrated by a limited number of gangs. We hope that that help can be brought to bear effectively, because it would be misleading to suggest to the public that this is a brave new world, or to create fears that the Security Service will be unleashed in a massive and intrusive involvement in every aspect of people's lives. The purpose of the debates on the Bill has been to get some of those details and safeguards right. My party is pleased that significant progress was made, although some matters remain unresolved.

Mr. Allason: No one can doubt the determination of every hon. Member to fight crime. We must welcome the Bill if it does anything to decrease crime on our streets, to remove the drug dealers and to deal with the money launderers. However, I have some reservations about the proposition that 20 or 30 Security Service officers—who have probably never given evidence in court and who have no knowledge or experience of collecting evidence for presentation in court—will have the analytical skills that can be deployed against professional criminals.
It was clear from the Second Reading debate that, in some ways, the Security Service has run out of things to do—or certainly thought it had prior to the events of last week. It is unpalatable that the catalyst for this exercise has not been a long and carefully thought out strategy against organised crime, but an examination of the Security Service to see whether its surveillance techniques, personnel and other clandestine skills can be deployed against professional criminals. The truth is that, at the end of the cold war and during the Provisional IRA ceasefire, there was seen to be a capacity available for deployment elsewhere. I doubt whether the Bill will do a great deal of good in the fight against organised crime, but I am certainly aware of everybody's determination to fight crime.
Perhaps the nettle that has not been grasped is the real one—whether the other intelligence agencies that already play a role in countering international drug smuggling and money laundering should not better adopt the role. In 1945, there was a proposal and a firm intention to integrate the Secret Intelligence Service and the Security Service. That is why the building in Horseferry road, now the Department of the Environment, was originally built. There was to be a single integrated service, because it was believed that there was no geographical distinction in terms of counter-intelligence.
The Secret Intelligence Service has for many years been carrying out a great deal of extremely good work in countering international drug smugglers. Its work has been unacknowledged but it is a past master, recognized

by the Drug Enforcement Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency as being in command of a great deal of knowledge relating to money laundering, particularly in the Caribbean. I want to pay tribute to those officers who have risked their lives overseas by making inquiries, delving into bank accounts and liaising with local forces in order to deal with that menace.
Although I wish the Bill well, I have considerable doubts about whether 20 or 30 officers will do the slightest bit of good. I urge the Intelligence and Security Committee to take a long hard look at the role of the Secret Intelligence Service and the Security Service in the future.

Mr. Mullin: Like the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason), I wish to register one or two small reservations about the Bill which I have had from the outset. It is true that it has been improved in Committee, but not all the problems have been solved. The problem is—it was mentioned by the hon. Member for Torbay and others during our deliberations—that a large part of the security apparatus has run out of things to do, and search parties have had to be sent out to find something useful for it to do.
If any other Government Department had run out of things to do, redundancies would have been declared and public money would have been saved. That is not the way things appear to happen in the security services, which have always been fairly lavish with public money, anyway. Those whose services were no longer required would be free to reapply to the police or wherever it was though that their talents could be used.
I do not dispute that some of the talents of the security services may be of use in fighting organised crime and, if so, that is how they should be deployed, but the relevant personnel should be transferred to the police so that they come under the authority of the police and are subject to the rule of law and the accountability—imperfect though it is—to which the police are subject. That is what should have happened.
It has been said several times during our deliberations that only 20 or 30 personnel will be involved. That may well be the case now, but the Bill opens up the possibility that in years to come several hundred people employed by the security services may be deployed in that way. The Bill that we are about to pass will be the authority for that. Who knows what those people may get up to or what difficulties may arise in, for example, giving evidence in a court of law?
I say the same as the hon. Member for Torbay. The Intelligence and Security Committee should monitor carefully how things work out with the 20 or 30 personnel. It should also monitor whether there is scope for saving some public money. If it thinks that there is, it should not hesitate to say so. This may be a subject to which the House will have to return if things do not work out as well as we all hope.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Local Government Reorganisation (Remuneration)

Mr. Frank Dobson: I beg to move,
That the Local Government Reorganisation (Compensation for Loss of Remuneration) Regulations 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 2837), dated 3rd November 1995, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th November, be revoked.
The regulations cover local authority staff who work for shire counties or shire districts and who have been affected by local government reorganisation. In particular, they cover those whose remuneration has been reduced as a result of the reorganisation—those who lose money through no fault of their own; those who suffer detriment.
It would probably be helpful to the House to spell out the large numbers who are potentially covered by the regulations. According to my calculations, 137,000 staff are involved in those areas where unitary authorities were elected last May and which will take control of those authorities this April. There are potentially 292,000 staff covered in the unitary authorities that will be elected this May and which will take control in April 1997 and 314,000 staff will be covered by those authorities for which there have been recommendations from the Local Government Commission but which, for one reason or another, have not yet been put to the House. Their position is unlikely to be sorted out for another two years. That makes a total of almost 750,000 people. We must bear in mind the fact that we are talking about the lives and livelihoods of that huge number of people.
The object of the rules is to attempt to treat people fairly, not just as chattels who work for a certain wage for one authority and who are then shifted to another authority and paid less money or who have their pay reduced because of reorganisation in the authority for which they are working. The object is to ease the pain of the insecurity.
The Government have turned the promotion of insecurity into an art form in recent times. People feel insecure on the streets where they live, old people feel insecure about their pension prospects, young people feel insecure about their chance of finding a job, sick people feel insecure about their chance of obtaining hospital treatment and, above all, many people feel insecure about the future of their jobs. One would have thought that some Conservative Members would have given that matter some close attention because some of them are insecure in their jobs.

Mr. Roy Thomason: If the hon. Gentleman considers this measure to be so important, will he explain why it took him and his colleagues from 28 November, when the regulations were introduced, to 10 January to lay a prayer against them?

Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman is as daft as a brush, if it is not contrary to the rules of order to say so. We laid a prayer against them, but it took a long time for the Government to agree to debate it on the Floor of the House. We do not need any silly interventions like that. I do not think that many of the people whose pay has been affected will be interested in the toings and froings of this order. The Government proposed that we should debate

the matter in Committee. We decided that the regulations should be debated not in Committee, but on the Floor of the House. They are now being debated on the Floor of the House; when matters are debated on the Floor of the House is decided not by the Opposition, but by the Government, as anybody should know.

Mr. Phil Gallie: The hon. Gentleman referred to a number of issues about which people had concerns, such as health and youth unemployment. Yet youth unemployment is going down and we are doing better than other countries in Europe. Is it not the hon. Gentleman and his party who have raised fears, quite falsely, about those matters within the community at large? Do they take responsibility for using political opportunism?

Mr. Dobson: I could apply to the hon. Gentleman's contribution what Winston Churchill said in 1909 when talking about the future of the House of Lords. He challenged any Tory supporter of the existing position of the House of Lords to make speeches defending it. He pointed out that Lord Lansdowne had delivered an essay in feudalism in Oldham and he hoped that he would speak in every part of the country because the Liberals and Labour party members, who were against the House of Lords, would then not have to make their case because he had made it for them. Every time the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) gets up, he makes our case for us.
Above all, people feel insecure about their jobs. If Conservative Members do not believe that many of our fellow citizens feel insecure in their jobs, they are indulging in the worst form of deception, which is self-deception.
The local government reorganisation has been a shambles from start to finish. Against virtually a promise from the then Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), that virtually everywhere would become unitary authorities, we have shadow unitary authorities in office in Hartlepool, Stockton-on-Tees, Middlesbrough, Redcar and Cleveland, Bristol, North West Somerset, South Gloucestershire, Bath and North East Somerset, York, the East Riding, North Lincolnshire, Hull, North East Lincolnshire and Selby.
Other orders have been passed by the House, but the councils concerned have not yet come into operation. Those councils are Brighton and Hove, Bournemouth, Darlington, Derby, Luton, Milton Keynes, Poole, Portsmouth, Southampton, Stoke, Thamesdown, Leicester and Rutland. There are also a host of others that have not yet got through the House. Four councils have been approved by the Secretary of State for the Environment—Nottingham, Plymouth, Torbay and Southend. There are also six in Berkshire, plus Herefordshire, Blackburn, Blackpool, Halton, Medway Towns, Peterborough, Thurrock, Warrington and The Wrekin. People in all those areas do not know what is happening to their jobs.

Mr. David Nicholson: I suspect that the House will find that in most authorities that are to be unitary authorities, there is substantial popular backing for those developments. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman's party backs those unitary authorities. The reason why the hon. Gentleman is so frustrated by the failure of local government reorganisation to sweep away the county


tier—which, it is clear from this process, has considerable traditional, historical and popular backing—is that he hoped that the process would do the work of his party. Sweeping away that tier would mean that his party could introduce regional assemblies, which no one in England wants.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I am feeling rather helpful tonight. I inform hon. Members that it is not permissible to discuss local government reorganisation in general. We are talking about the remuneration of people who have been affected by the reorganisation.

Mr. Dobson: I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as anyone should, so I shall not be tempted by what the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) has said, other than to say that when the right hon. Member for Henley, now the Deputy Prime Minister, introduced the idea of the Local Government Commission, he made it clear that he expected virtually everywhere in the country to be turned into a unitary authority. If we have had inconsistency, stupidity and a total mess, it is no good blaming the Opposition.
The problem with all this is that, as Conservatives clearly recognise—or should recognise if they are genuinely conservative—change costs money. If we are to have change in local government, whatever the merits of the end of the process of change, we must realise that the process absorbs resources, costs money and causes a lot of bother for the people involved. That is certainly happening at the moment.
For that reason, the Government have just announced that they cannot find the money to finance the process of change, some of which would be devoted to meeting the compensation under the regulations. In effect, the Government have announced that they cannot find money for the process of change in Nottingham, Plymouth, Blackpool, Peterborough, Torbay, Southend, Thurrock, Warrington, Blackburn, Halton, The Wrekin and the Medway towns, and all the changes in the whole of Berkshire.
It appears that the country is in such a mess that the Government, despite the fact that it is their policy, which has the support of the Opposition, which has been proposed by the Local Government Commission and which, as the hon. Member for Taunton has pointed out, is supported by local people in most places, cannot find the money to fund the process of change. As a result, we have an extended period of uncertainty and a likely period during which further expenses will be incurred. That uncertainty and expense will be bad for local people, bad for local purposes and bad for staff.
It is not as if the provision that is being made, either to compensate those who lose their jobs or those whose pay goes down, which is what we are dealing with tonight, is generous. Neither the provision for individuals nor the provision for funding the process of change is generous.
Humberside is being abolished, yet the new East Riding council is short of funds. The new North Lincolnshire council is short of funds. The Bristol authority is clearly short of funds; I think that one or more of my colleagues from Cleveland intend to make the same point. I am sure

that the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) will want to make the point about the difficulties faced in Selby, which has been knocked about in two ways.
First, the removal of York from North Yorkshire has led to increases in costs for the rest of North Yorkshire, which includes Selby. Secondly, Selby, in the process of change, also lost a substantial amount of the suburbs of York to the new York authority, so it has had an enormous reduction in the rateable value of its residential property. Clearly, Selby, unless the Minister comes up with some extra funds, will find it difficult to cope and even to fund the rather miserable terms of the regulations. Like the other regulations that have stemmed from the reorganisation, the best thing that we can do is to try—

Mr. Edward Leigh: I am not making a partisan point; I am only interested in the hon. Gentleman's view. How does he think that we shall avoid the mistakes that were clearly made in the previous major reorganisation of 1974, when there was a general view in the House that we were simply changing the deck chairs? There were enormous costs involved in that reorganisation. Despite the fact that the number of authorities was supposed to be reduced, it appeared that members of staff ensured that their jobs were preserved at their current levels. There was grave dissatisfaction throughout the country. How does the hon. Gentleman feel we can avoid that happening again?

Mr. Dobson: The best way in which to avoid having daft reorganisations of local government is not to have a Tory Government. The hon. Gentleman refers to the previous reorganisation. That reorganisation, which the present Government are now reorganising, was carried out by a Tory Government and the Labour and Liberal parties voted against it. We accept no responsibility for the chaotic mismanagement of change which has been a major characteristic of the Conservative party. Those were the people who spent £16 billion—not million, billion—introducing, trying to run and then getting rid of the poll tax.

Mr. Thomason: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It will now be helpful if we can get back to the proposed remuneration for those who have suffered loss. We are going very wide of the debate, so I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would stick to the subject of the debate—remuneration.

Mr. Dobson: I have done my level best to do so all the way through, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Let us compare the regulations with similar regulations pertaining to the same circumstances. The last time that similar regulations were introduced was in 1986, when another Tory Government abolished the Greater London council and the metropolitan counties. The 1995 regulations are much meaner and more miserable in their approach to staff than were those introduced at the time of the 1986 negotiation.

Mr. Thomason: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dobson: No. The hon. Gentleman constantly stands up and tries to cause me to go out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I refuse to respond to the temptation any further.
The flavour of the regulations may be summarised as "meaner than Maggie", because they are meaner than the regulations that were introduced when Lady Thatcher was Prime Minister. The provisions are much meaner and more miserable than those that applied when Mrs. Thatcher abolished the Greater London council and the metropolitan counties.
The regulations are designed to compensate a person who is affected by the local government reorganisation and who, in the process of that reorganisation, is forced to take a job with pay worse than their existing pay. Under the regulations, such compensation as is given will be given for only three years. Under the 1986 Thatcherite regulations, compensation made up the full difference between the previous pay and the new pay for seven years, and half the difference for one year. Under the regulations, the difference will be made up for only three years—half as good as Mrs. T.
The compensation will not make up all the difference between the pay that people would have had and the pay that they get, because—

Mr. Thomason: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the previous regulations had a cap imposed on them, which the 1995 regulations do not, so there is a big difference?

Mr. Dobson: The people affected by the regulations, whom I have been consulting, all tell me that if they could go "snap" on the 1986 regulations instead of the 1995 regulations, they would do so. Generally speaking, whatever the differences between the two sets of regulations, the 1986 regulations, passed 10 years ago, were more advantageous to the people covered by them than are the 1995 regulations.
People will not be fully compensated for what they lose. Even in three years, people with their high level of pay would have reasonably expected pay increases, increments, and possibly bonus payments—even performance-related pay—but they will have to forgo all that, and the benchmark used to calculate compensation will only be the pay that they receive at the time when their pay decreases.
Let us suppose that a person was due to receive a pay increase as a result of a nationally negotiated agreement, or an increment, on the day that the scheme came into operation. As compensation will he calculated on the basis of the pay that the person received the day before the scheme came into operation, they will be robbed of one year's pay increase or increment. That is miserable and mean-minded.
Compensation payments will not be pensionable, so not only will people lose their pay during the three years, but their pension will be permanently lower than it would have been if they had stayed in their old job. The Government will not make any allowance for the pension. That is unfair generally, but especially unfair to people approaching retirement, who have worked hard all their lives and whose pension entitlement will be cut as well as their pay because they have lost out in the lottery of local government reorganisation, which was set in train by the present Deputy Prime Minister. I suppose it is yet another of his unsigned cheques.
At the other end of the time scale, people will not be entitled to any compensation unless they have been in post for 12 months before the scheme comes into operation.
I do not understand why that constraint applies. It is as much a pay cut for a person who has recently started a job as for a person who has been in it for a long time.
If the Government were logical and allowed people to include the compensation for pension purposes, it might be possible to justify giving a slight advantage to people who had served an authority for a long time. A person at the lower end of the pay scale, starting their career, who may have recently married, who has just been appointed or promoted, will lose out by receiving no compensation.
An important matter arises from the due commencement date of the regulations. Previously, the Minister and I have clashed over whether we understood orders and I believe that once it could be reasonably proved that neither of us understood the part of an order that was under discussion. As I understand the regulations, however, eligibility for compensation will come into operation only on the day of the election for the shadow authority.
In the case of people in the Brighton and Hove or Southampton group of authorities—I shall not read out all the place-names—the scheme will come into operation on 2 May 1996. A substantial problem will result, however, from the Government's decision to postpone elections or not to hold elections for the other tranche of authorities—Nottingham, Plymouth, The Wrekin, Blackpool, Blackburn and so on—because it is quite possible that, reasonably, those authorities will wish to make progress with reorganisation. It would make good sense for the new unitary authorities and the counties to start the reorganisation process once they know that reorganisation will take place. Even if they start moving people about and reorganising departments before the election day, that would trigger the arrangement.
People working for Nottinghamshire, Plymouth, Southend, The Wrekin, Warrington, Halton or the Medway Towns may therefore be moved in anticipation of local government reorganisation and may have their pay cut but not be eligible for the benefits of the compensation scheme.

Mr. Thomason: You are wrong.

Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman sits on his behind, saying that I am wrong, but I am not at all sure that I am wrong. Obviously, no one will move from one employer to another to his detriment during that time, but it is quite possible that forward-looking authorities will want to start reorganising their departments as quickly as possible to minimise costs and so on, and very many staff are therefore exposed to being shifted around to their detriment without being entitled to compensation. I do not think I am wrong about that. I suspect that I will be proved right—not about everything, but about some things. [Laughter.] It is all very well for people to laugh, but supposing Conservative Members were employed by these authorities and had to anticipate a change—

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I shall explain why we are laughing as slowly and simply as I can. I am not laughing at the grief of people who find their employment disappearing. I am laughing at the spectacle of someone at the Dispatch Box admitting that he does not understand much of his brief but hoping that one day he will. That is highly insulting to those affected by the regulations.

Mr. Dobson: I made a new year's resolution two or three years ago never to give way again to the hon. Gentleman—


ever since his affair with the taxi and the drink in Bournemouth. Clearly I must stick to my resolutions in future.
The other problem that arises concerns the limitation on compensation. Compensation covers only remuneration, so that any leave entitlement that may have been built up over a long, hard-working career, or the number of hours worked, can be cut with no compensation. That too shows that these arrangements are harmful to a great many hard-working people. It is one reason why we shall vote against them tonight. I repeat: these regulations are meaner than Maggie, an achievement most people would have thought quite difficult.
On top of all this, and as a result of the Government's decision not to proceed quickly with the remaining orders, there will be a massive period of unpleasant insecurity for large numbers of hard-working staff. That is bound to affect the quality of the services provided, and to lead to increased costs. We think the whole thing is a bad deal; that is why we shall vote against it tonight.

The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry): We should note, first, the touching affection displayed by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) for Lady Thatcher. I shall see that she is informed instantly of the hon. Gentleman's retrospective Valentine. Meanwhile, he gave us an account of recent history which I should briefly like to correct, so as to set the debate in the necessary context.
When we set up the Cooksey commission, the hon. Gentleman and I agreed that there were some areas that needed to be reviewed, and we discussed which ones should be referred to the commission. The recommendations fell due before Christmas. We then had a period of consultation that closed yesterday. Indeed, the last two delegations came to the Department on Monday. We therefore need to reflect on the consultations, because we have not yet made up our minds—if we had, the consultations would have been a charade. In fact they were real.
We then have to produce the orders implementing our decisions. Subject to consultations again, we shall consider the practical details with the local authorities concerned to make sure that they are technically correct. We must then lay the orders and vote on them, here and in another place.
Anyone who thinks that all this can be done in order to hold shadow elections in May is not being realistic. The reason for the delay, which I regret, is one of timetabling. It would be difficult to do all the necessary spadework in time to give local authorities even a sporting chance of holding shadow elections in May—

Mr. Dobson: It would be impossible not to accept some logic in what the Minister says about the authorities that were recommended for unitary status by the Cooksey commission—they are the products of the re-review. The same, however, certainly does not apply to Nottingham, Plymouth and Torbay, because the Secretary of State has made clear his decision that they are to go ahead. But they were held up while other parts of the relevant counties

were reconsidered, and the propositions for reconsideration of the other parts of these counties have not been endorsed by the commission. As Nottingham, Plymouth and Torbay have been on hold all this time, it would surely be reasonable to go ahead with them. It would not be difficult, and I can guarantee that we would help to get them through.

Mr. Curry: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's continuing intention to treat these matters, as far as possible, in a bipartisan fashion. That is only sensible. But he will know that the commission re-reviewed some new areas in places where certain arrangements had already been agreed for the creation of new unitary status. Some of the recommendations that I have received in the past few weeks have come from areas which the Cooksey commission declined to recommend for unitary status, asking me to send them back for a third time around the course. That is what has prevented us from closing out the matter and going ahead. Consultation is bound to leave options open.

Mr. David Rendel: Let us leave aside for a moment areas apparently decided on and agreed by the Government some time ago—including Berkshire, which has had difficulties with judicial review, and so on. It has at least been through the draft order process once, though. The Minister seems to be saying that timetabling difficulties are the sole reason for his withholding the orders dealing with the Cooksey-type recommendations. Surely he should have realised that a long time ago. He has left the authorities in ignorance of whether they are going to go ahead with May elections until the last possible moment. The Minister could have known about any timetabling difficulties last year.

Mr. Curry: When we set up the Cooksey commission it was not clear when it would make its recommendations. Had it asked for more time to consider, it would have been logical to allow it more time. When local authorities have discussed the matter with me, I have made it clear that we intend to facilitate an effective transfer of power during the reorganisation. Of course everyone wants to know what is going to happen, but we want to ensure an effective transfer of responsibilities.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister's opening remarks have been helpful, but now we should get down to the regulations.

Mr. Curry: I anticipated your desire, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and was about to move to the precise subject matter of today's debate.
As the House will be aware, we intend reorganisation to bring benefits, and both sides of the House agree that reorganisation means big changes, not least for local authority staff. Some of the savings that will come from reorganisation necessarily result from changes in the staffing structure. It may be helpful to outline the three main changes to arrangements for staff that flow from reorganisation.
The first change is the redundancy compensation scheme which was debated in the House more than a year ago and which has been in place for more than a year. So that piece of the jigsaw is already in place. Secondly, there are the staff transfer orders. They will provide automatic transfer


for front-line service staff, to ensure that there is no disruption to essential local services over the reorganisation period. The Welsh Office and my Department have worked closely with the authorities over recent months to prepare the staff transfer orders. The orders governing staff in Avon, Cleveland, Humberside and North Yorkshire have now all been agreed with all the relevant authorities, and will be laid, as planned, at the end of this month, in time for the reorganisation on 1 April.
The third element of the package is the scheme for compensating staff who take a lower paid job as a result of the reorganisation—the subject of tonight's debate. The regulations are the result of two extensive consultation exercises in England and Wales. There were obviously a large number of comments. We have considered them carefully, and they are reflected in the final scheme which I am about to describe.

Mr. Thomason: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, if the regulations do not make progress today, the future of authority staff will be uncertain and that it is in their interest to have the matter determined promptly?

Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend is right. If the regulations were not passed, the detriment scheme would not exist. I have no doubt that the Government would wish to look again at the detriment arrangements, but it would take many weeks, given the consultation that we have to go through. Undoubtedly, that would mean that the uncertainty would be prolonged, as he suggested

Ms Dawn Primarolo: Could the Minister explain why people in Avon are being offered a less generous detriment scheme than has been offered in any previous local government reorganisation and less generous than those currently in place for civil servants? Why are they being asked to take the penalty of the cost of reorganisation?

Mr. Curry: I am delighted that the hon. Lady is so impatient to hear what I will say. I intend to address directly the scheme before us.

Ms Primarolo: So why is it a less generous scheme?

Mr. Curry: I do not accept the premise of that remark.
The purpose of compensation for financial detriment is to encourage staff who wish to continue their careers in local government to stay rather than take redundancy. We recognise that there is a great deal of expertise in local government which new councils will not wish to lose. Employees are not prevented from taking redundancy if it arises but if they wish to stay in local government, despite a drop in pay, we need to provide a bridging mechanism. The regulations provide the bridging mechanism. By avoiding the need for redundancy payments and encouraging councils to retain existing employees in new jobs, the scheme should benefit staff, employers and the taxpayer.
The regulations do not give anything away. They do not change in any way the normal protection afforded to staff by employment law. Terms and conditions can be changed only with an employee's agreement. The

detriment compensation scheme is there to give employer and employee additional options in making the transition from old to new staffing structures.

Mr. Andrew Miller: It is of course the case that the transfer of undertakings regulations to which the Minister alludes do not cover pensions. What specific provision is being made to build in proper protection for future service in the pension funds of those people that the Minister recognises as valuable to local government?

Mr. Curry: I am disappointed that there is so little faith among Opposition Members in my willingness to cover comprehensively the matters that arise from the regulations. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that I intend to deal with pensions.
Detriment compensation is mandatory. That was requested by many consultees, including the local authority associations and the unions. It is available widely to staff affected by reorganisation and can arise in a number of ways. The shadow unitary authority, having decided on its staffing structure, will offer appointments to staff from an outgoing or transferring authority on the basis of the new salary structure. That may mean a reduction for some staff. Many staff will transfer by staff transfer orders or under TUPE and carry on doing the same job with no change in terms and conditions. However, in the subsequent restructuring that the authority may undertake to sort out the varying terms and conditions of the staff that it has inherited, such staff may be offered a change of terms and conditions.
Finally, staff who stay in continuing authorities may similarly be offered changed terms and conditions as a result of restructuring. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) will recall the occasion on which he and I fell into some terminological inexactitudes in an earlier debate over what constituted a continuing authority. The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) will recall that as well. A continuing authority is a unitary authority built on an existing district which acquires additional functions.
If a change in salary arises at any time in the period running from the date of the shadow elections to 18 months after the reorganisation date, detriment compensation will be triggered. The shadow authority may therefore pay detriment compensation and the fully operational authority may also do so up to 18 months following reorganisation. That should provide adequate time for any restructuring that flows from the reorganisation.
Whenever it is triggered, the compensation is paid for three years. Provided that they meet certain criteria, which I shall describe later, staff will receive compensation equal to three times the fall in annual remuneration. It will be payable over 36 months, thus in effect ensuring that the individual monthly total of pay and benefits will be maintained at the old level following the change in salary.

Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend is receiving considerable flak from the Opposition about how mean he has been, but he would be the first to accept that, in the private sector, things such as detriment contributions are not available. Will he answer the question that I put to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson)


that he declined to answer? While the public are concerned about junior members of staff who lose their jobs altogether, what they are really worried about is what happened in the previous reorganisation, when senior members of staff cushioned their positions. They ensured that, where there were two directors of housing, both kept their jobs and a controller of housing was appointed on top of them. That is what the public want to hear about. Will my hon. Friend make it clear that the Government will ensure that such cheating of council tax payers does not continue?

Mr. Curry: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reflecting a point of view that one hears widely. People wish to make sure that the reorganisation is carried out effectively and does not become a pretext for people to upgrade their jobs when a change in functions is not necessarily involved. We will examine carefully some of the increases in salary that appear to have been awarded in some authorities.

Mr. Dobson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Curry: I shall in a moment. I must make it clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) that the regulations do not include an element of surtax on people who have received a higher salary to fund the detriment compensation scheme.

Mr. Dobson: Will the Minister comment on the eligibility of Ministers of the Crown who have lost their ministerial posts and gone to the Back Benches—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister would be wise not to reply to that.

Mr. Curry: Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is with the utmost restraint that I observe your injunction not to respond, deeply conscious as I am of what the ministerial compensation would be should I suffer a mishap in my relations with the Prime Minister over the next 24 hours.

Mr. Dobson: Great Scott!

Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman is in characteristic form—largely unoriginal but none the less endearing for that.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras compared this scheme with that made available in 1986. Such comparisons must be fair and take into account all aspects of the two schemes. Under the 1986 scheme, the compensation payable was limited to £5,000 a year. There is no limit in these regulations, which in that respect are more generous. That was something that the local authority associations and the unions specifically asked for during the consultation.
Secondly, in the 1986 scheme a person had to have been in employment continuously for three years before reorganisation before becoming eligible for compensation. We have taken a more liberal approach in the regulations and require people to have been in employment on 1 April in the year before reorganisation—that is, one year's service at the most.
Thirdly, in the regulations, we require employers to make monthly payments of compensation. In the 1986 scheme, they were required by law only to make annual payments in arrears, although authorities had the option of making interim payments. If the schemes are compared in their totality, recognising the need to take account of the money available, the regulations offer significant benefits when compared with the scheme available in 1986, and are better able to deliver their object. It is a better-engineered scheme.
The detriment scheme aims to ease the transition from the old to the new staffing structure. It is not salary protection. New councils will wish to set up new staffing arrangements, with a salary structure to match and staff will get the salary set by the employer as the rate for the job. That may well increase over time. The payments under the regulations are compensation, not part of that salary and there is no presumption that they should increase in line with the salary.
The underlying salary may, of course, increase, and the employee will not be denied that increase if the increase in salary is matched by a decrease in compensation. If an individual is unfortunate enough to suffer more than one reduction in remuneration during the prescribed period, the regulations allow those reductions to be considered as a separate event, and allow separate sets of detriment payments to be made in respect of each reduction.
I have used the term "salary" as a convenient form of shorthand. The regulations provide for total remuneration—that is, salary as well as other payments or benefits in kind—to be taken into account in the calculation of entitlement to compensation. The definition of remuneration is similar to that used for pension purposes, and is generally familiar.
Some consultees have been anxious about the effect on the pensions of staff who qualify for detriment compensation under the regulations, and have asked why detriment payments are not pensionable. The answer is that there is no need for them to be: pensions are protected by other means. The Local Government Pension Scheme Regulations 1995—which, no doubt, hon. Members will instantly recall—provide for staff to receive a certificate of material change enabling them to elect to have any pensions calculations based on higher previous earnings.
The certificate enables staff to choose their highest earnings in a period going back as far as 13 years. Staff are therefore protected—and, in addition, will receive a slight financial benefit through not having to pay contributions to their local government pension schemes on their detriment compensation.

Mr. Miller: rose—

Mr. Curry: No doubt the hon. Gentleman will wish to deal with the subject in his own speech. If the House gives me leave to do so, I shall try to respond to any additional points that he makes in my winding-up speech.

Mr. Miller: rose—

Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman seems to be rather anxious for his dinner.

Mr. Miller: In fact, the hon. Gentleman had his dinner earlier so that he could listen to the Minister.
I accept that regulations are in place to deal with the pensions certificate, but they do not provide for a notional final salary—the salary that someone within four or five years of retirement might have achieved under the previous arrangements. There is a difference between the position created by the regulations to which the Minister referred and the detriment that some people might suffer. I do not expect the Minister to make arrangements for someone who may have just joined the scheme, but those approaching pensionable age could be significantly disadvantaged by the final salary arrangements. Could not amendments be made to the existing regulations?

Mr. Curry: I shall reflect on what the hon. Gentleman has said, and hope to deal with it later if the House gives me permission. If I cannot do so, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman giving more details. Pensions are a complex issue, and I do not pretend to be conversant with every detail. The hon. Gentleman and I will have to mug up on it.
We have been asked to make the scheme widely available, and we have done so; but there are some qualifying criteria. The drop in salary must be attributable to local government reorganisation, because the regulations do not extend to more general restructuring exercises. The employee must be in the employment of a relevant council on or before 1 April of the year prior to the reorganisation; staff employed after that date must accept the job on that basis. The drop in salary must be suffered in the prescribed period, staff must be employed by councils directly affected by reorganisation, and detriment compensation will not be payable to any individual receiving redundancy compensation or retirement benefits.
In the regulations, we have set out a scheme that is widely available to local government staff affected by reorganisation. The normal protection accorded to staff by employment law is unaffected by the regulations. Detriment compensation will enable authorities and staff to make arrangements to ease the transition to the new structures. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) has said, the motion to revoke the regulations will deny employers and staff that possibility. It will make it more difficult for staff to stay in local government employment, and for councils to retain experienced staff during restructuring. On that basis, I strongly advise the House to reject the motion.

Mr. Frank Cook: Hon. Members will not be surprised by my speech. Over the past 15 months, I have opposed a number of measures of this kind. I am disappointed that so few hon. Members are present, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) pointed out, the regulations will eventually affect hundreds of thousands of people.
I suppose that the reason for the poor attendance is the piecemeal way in which the Government are introducing these measures. They have used a combination of SI—statutory instrument—and SO, or stealth and obfuscation. Many of my hon. Friends—and, I suspect, quite a few Conservative Members—will regret the scant regard that has been paid to the way in which those gradual steps have eroded the forms of local government that existed until this year.
I speak as a representative of one of the early authorities. My constituency is part of Cleveland county, where the process of transition is all but complete. It gives me no satisfaction to tell the House that all my predictions about the Government's proposals are coming true, and that the impact on staff—I am aware that that is the point of our debate—has been grave.
I intend to speak generally. Perhaps some Conservative Members will pick up a few tips on what to expect after the next general election, but I hesitate to lower the debate to the ridiculous levels to which some Conservatives have tried to lower it—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's general comments will be within the scope of the debate.

Mr. Cook: I am trying to explain how staff will be affected by the proposals, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that that will be within the scope of the debate.
We are not talking about fat cats; we are not even talking about top officers in local authorities.

Mr. Thomason: Yes, we are.

Mr. Cook: If the hon. Gentleman would listen, rather than trying to get his name on to the record—as he has tried to do throughout the debate—he might learn something, and Bromsgrove might be a better place.
We should not even be talking about top officers, many of whom have done rather nicely out of reorganisation, either through generous pay-offs—for those taking early retirement—or through enhanced salaries for those taking promotion or moving on. Conservative Members have mentioned that. We should be talking about the thousands of hard-working and frequently low-paid staff in local authorities—the many people referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras—whose lives and careers have been thrown into disarray through no fault of their own.
They are the victims of a cynical and, in my view, dishonest political and bilious vendetta against authorities such as the effective and efficient Labour authority in Cleveland, whose only crime was to have the nerve to defend local services and defy the Government's unremitting drive to destroy a truly democratic local government structure, transferring its responsibilities lock, stock and barrel to a quango state. The county of Cleveland is rapidly becoming known as "quangoland".
I know, from the experience of my constituents who work in the local authority, the heartache and disruption that is being inflicted on so many local authority employees. Junior staff have had to apply for 30, 40—sometimes 50—different jobs, in the desperate hope of finding further employment. I know of highly qualified senior staff whose careers have been destroyed and who are now told that they are simply the casualties of the reorganisation. I know of examples where staff have reached such desperation about their future that they have been unable to eat or sleep. There have been reports in the local media that at least one employee was driven to the point where he took his own life. His fears over reorganisation were considered a significant factor.
Yet what happened to Cleveland county council—the current employer and which will be dismantled at the end of next month—when it offered modest counselling and


support? Abuse was piled on it, not least by some hon. Members, because it had the temerity to offer a counselling service to the very people whom we are discussing, who not only were in danger of a miserly level of compensation but were thrust into the maelstrom of emotional turmoil. I wonder what those hon. Members would say if they came face to face with those workers or their families tonight.
What do the Government, who so hate public services, offer to victims of the vendetta? The regulations offer the worst compensation ever offered in any reorganisation. The offer is far worse than the terms that the Government provide for civil servants or, indeed, Ministers. Is it any wonder that morale among so many workers is at rock bottom? They are seeing the services that they have worked so hard to build up ripped apart and their future thrown into chaos and confusion. They are not only losing their employment, but seeing the structures that they have helped to build over the years dismantled as they leave.
As a former construction worker, I can tell the House that when I took redundancy at the end of a contract, I was happy to walk away and see that what had been a green-field site when I walked on to it had become an operating entity contributing to the community. The individuals we are discussing will not have that benefit.
Against such a background, what hope is there for the consumers of local services, who are being treated with precisely the same cynical disregard as the staff? Day in, day out, they are discovering that the promises made to them by Ministers and their stooges in local government were total illusions. Let us remember some of the promises. Let us remember that Sir John Banham and his commission colleagues told the people of Cleveland that, with regard to costs, they estimated that the annual savings under their proposals would be, on average, £46 a household, or the equivalent of 10 per cent. of the average council tax bill. The people of Cleveland are paying more, the services are fewer and the people who provide those services are threatened with meagre compensation.
Only last night, my local evening paper carried on its front page what it described as "the full horror" that my constituents, my council's employees and the rest of the Teesside community face. It is a horror that is likely to include drastic cuts in services to some of the most vulnerable groups—the elderly, disabled people and the mentally ill. Yet local council tax payers will face bigger bills, and local employees the prospect of unemployment.
It is a disgrace that the architects of this disastrous reorganisation are so silent and so absent. So uninterested are they that they seem to have walked away from the havoc that they have wreaked, the careers and lives that they have ruined and the services that they have wrecked. My constituents will be living with that for many years to come.

Mr. Michael Alison: The hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) represents a neighbouring county to my own in North Yorkshire, and nobody who lives in and represents the north of England can dispute the fact that Cleveland has been at the eye of the storm in terms of local government change and reform in recent years. I understand the points that he made. As a

representative of a county with Cleveland to the north and Humberside to the south, I understand what it means to have awkward neighbours, if I can put it like that, in county terms.
The hon. Gentleman has, however, cast a pall of gloom over the regulations before us, which do not merit the negative criticism that he levelled at them. This is, after all, a compensation measure.
I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration, who pinpointed and spelled out clearly the improvements that have been made to the measure compared with what was on offer in 1986. As I understand it, local government officers who are confronted with the dilemma of having to choose between transferring to new local authorities as a result of the reorganisation and thereby having to accept lower salaried posts, and ceasing employment in local government altogether and henceforth going into retirement with a pension, or accepting redundancy, will have a real incentive as a result of my hon. Friend's measure. They will have an incentive at least to try to find a new lease of life in local government.
That is particularly relevant to the parliamentary division of Selby, which is coterminous with our local government district. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) was good enough to refer to Selby in his speech. Indeed, I hardly ever see him on his feet without Selby district getting a notice, and I am obliged to him tonight. He is quite right to say that Selby has been rather hard hit by the local government reorganisation—the double whammy, as he referred to it.
I remind my hon. Friend the Minister that, out of a staff provision of about 250 local government officers in the Selby district, no fewer than 65, which is a high proportion, will depart from Selby district employment. Forty-three of them will go to York. That is a relief, because they will continue in local government service. No fewer than 23 are not in local government employment, because there does not seem to be the opportunity for them at present, and early retirement or redundancy looks like the only option for them.
For the 43 or so Selby local government officers who are going to York, the compensation offered this evening, which will extend for three years and represent the difference between old and new pay, frozen at the point of reorganisation, will be a welcome incentive for the younger men in particular to continue to try to make a career in local government, even if it means an initial drop in salary.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for giving in the regulations—it may be a standard, but it is refreshing to have it reiterated—the welcome definition of remuneration, which is set out on page 2 in the interpretation clause. There are incidental expenses in changing one's local government employer, particularly in a rural area such as Selby district, where distances are quite extensive. There are the repercussions of the increased cost of travel from one's home to the new employer, of the uprooting of home and household and so on. Those are real and measurable disincentives to moving to a new local government employing authority, but I am glad to say that they are covered in the remuneration definition. I am grateful to the Minister for that.
Unquestionably, the taxpayer and the Government will pay for the scheme. I trust that local government will not have to foot the bill for the remuneration and


compensation schemes. My hon. Friend will be vividly aware that part of the purpose of the scheme is to encourage people not to take the redundancy route or to opt for early retirement but to continue to try to find work in local government.
A recurring problem that is acutely felt in the Selby district is that the cost of redundancy falls on the ratepayer, not on the taxpayer. That is why it is valuable to have a proposed scheme that will be funded by the Government, one of whose purposes is to avoid redundancy costs, which, as I say, fall directly on the shoulders of ratepayers.
The dilemma of whether to take further employment with local government or to take redundancy raises a potential problem. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, represent a coal mining constituency. The option of redundancy or the payment of early pensions for miners causes a difficulty that I am anxious should not be repeated in the proposed scheme. I do not know whether the Minister has heard of the troubles that are occurring partly in the Department of Trade and Industry as a result of the British Coal compensation scheme, and especially its staff superannuation fund. When the coal industry was privatised, the trustees of that superannuation fund provided that those who would be made redundant should be able to draw their pension at the age of 50 instead of the normal age of 60, which was the transitional or payable date for the pension under the fund.
We are discussing a redundancy compensation package. In the British Coal scheme, some miners who were made redundant on privatisation automatically qualified under the special provision to receive a pension at the age of 50. However, those miners were rapidly employed by the new employer and worked alongside miners who would have to work to the age of 60 before they received a pension. What will happen under the proposed scheme if local government officers take the redundancy route?

Mr. Curry: rose—

Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend is prepared to advise me before I have completed the question.

Mr. Curry: I think that my right hon. Friend is asking whether it is possible for someone to get compensation for redundancy and a job with the successor authority and, in practice, walk out of one authority on, say, 31 March and into another on 1 April, pocketing the redundancy payment. I do not think that the regulations permit that, but to be sure, we are amending the staff regulations and are consulting on amendments to the redundancy compensation regulations. We shall lay them shortly.

Mr. Alison: I am obliged to the Minister for that reassuring answer. It shows that the Government have continued to keep their finger on the pulse of some of the sensitivities in this area of transferring from one employment to another. The problem is reflected in the disastrous situation in Selby. Within the coal mining industry, there is profound disenchantment because people working alongside each other are being treated differently.
I am glad that the Minister has pre-empted that recurring, because it would be deleterious for local

government if there were stresses and strains between people arriving from different backgrounds of employment and with different prior entitlements. It would not be desirable for them to have to work in the same environment under the same terms of reference and have entirely different conditions of service. I am obliged to my hon. Friend for pre-empting that problem and reassuring me about it.
The Minister is manifestly following the debate closely and is ready to concede even before a point has been fully developed. That is a most disarming attitude for a Minister to adopt. Will he refresh his memory about the fundamental purpose of the provision, which is to direct local government officers who are facing redeployment in the direction of continuing employment under a compensation scheme that the taxpayer will accept? Will he remember that, although the sheep may be on the right, some goats will have to go on the left? Those goats are the unfortunate local government officers—20 or 30 of them in the Selby district—who cannot get openings in, for example, the new York unitary authority and will have to take redundancy. Selby will have to pick up the cost of that redundancy, and it will be gigantic for the officers who will not be re-employed in local government.
A few days ago, I reminded my hon. Friend about an SSA revenue support grant from his Department of more than £4 million. But the cost of redundancy in the Selby district for those who cannot go down the preferred route will be £1.5 million.

Mr. Curry: rose—

Mr. Alison: Once again my hon. Friend pre-empts my question.

Mr. Curry: I remember the debate in which the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) urged liberality upon me and I said that I would take Selby's case seriously. I think that my right hon. Friend is speaking about SCAs, supplementary credit approvals for redundancy, rather than the normal revenue support grant payments. I think that I am right in saying that, up to the present, the only demand by Selby is for a small amount of, I think, £100,000, which is manifestly inadequate. My Department is waiting for Selby to formulate a realistic demand. It is unusual for a Minister to describe a realistic demand as one that is likely to be higher than the one that has been made.

Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend has—very conveniently, I dare say—put his head into a little noose. In fact, the point at which redundancy liabilities become operative is crucial to Selby's problem. There are two years in question—1995–96 and 1996–97. In 1995–96—the year Selby's redundancy liabilities arose—the council put in a bid for £1.5 million to the Department of the Environment, and was offered £500,000.
My hon. Friend is suggesting that, for 1996–97, the council should make up the tally by putting in for what it did not succeed in getting in its first claim. But the chief finance officer of Selby district council has told me that in order not to falsify the claim—and thus be subject to the scrutiny of the district auditor—the council cannot


pretend that the liabilities arise in 1996–97, the year in which my hon. Friend is asking me to claim for more. If the council claimed for more, it would face the prospect of being faulted by the district auditor for falsifying a claim, as such claims can be made only in respect of the year in which a liability arises. It is no use my hon. Friend saying that, if the council increases the bid for the 1996–97 provision, it might get something. The council will not get it without falling foul of the district auditor.
I hope that my hon. Friend will focus his intensely perceptive and analytical mind on that relatively limited, specific problem, and decide whether he can provide a little retrospection for Selby, so that the offers that he makes of supplementary credit approvals can be unified with the council's liabilities. I do not want to bore my hon. Friend, who has been helpful. Perhaps he can bring the matter to a consummated and fruitful conclusion, so that we can get something for Selby that helps.
I remind the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in a speech on 31 January that he
announced a scheme last November to damp unacceptable increases in council taxes directly attributable to local government reorganisation".—[Official Report, 31 January 1996; Vol. 270, c. 1026.]
He also talked about the special help that might be available in, for example, North Lincolnshire. I hope very much that my hon. Friend the Minister will see whether he can allow Selby to dip its ladle into that pot of soup—limited though it may be—to get the special help that is needed.
I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I know of your sympathy for the coal industry—for having allowed me to digress a little. Nevertheless, I offer my warmest commendation to my hon. Friend on bringing forward this admirable and worthwhile scheme. I wish it every success.

Mr. David Rendel: I am delighted to have the chance to take part in the debate. It is a very suitable day for the debate to take place, following the announcement yesterday that much of the local government review has been postponed for a further year. Opposition Members have accepted for a long time that the local government review is a shambles, as it leaves us with an enormous number of different situations. Councils in some parts of the country have not yet been made unitary authorities but are expecting that to happen, while others have been made unitary authorities but have not yet had their elections. All sorts of different results have emerged, and many people have been left in uncertainty as a result.
I was disappointed by the Minister's answer to my intervention, because it seemed to show that, until Sir David Cooksey produced his report, he was worried about what the timetable might be. The timetable must have been obvious to the Minister from the middle of last December, at the very latest. Staff in the authorities that have had their unitary status put off for another year have been left unnecessarily in doubt about what will happen for at least two months beyond the moment the Minister could have made things entirely clear. I was disappointed by the hon. Gentleman's answer and by the shambles of the whole process.
We are beginning to know when authorities will finally gain unitary status. The difficulties that the review has caused mean that staff have been facing uncertainty for at least four years and, in some cases, rather longer. The possibility of redundancy and loss of earnings has been hanging over people all that time, and has left them in a worrying position.
It is not surprising that morale in local government has fallen a great deal, as it has in many different jobs. People have been left in an uncertain situation, particularly in areas where it is most likely that unitary authorities will be introduced. Sadly, the compensation package under review tonight will not do very much—if anything—to restore morale to the levels that existed before the review. That is due to the uncertainty of many councils, particularly those where the orders have not yet been laid but are likely. We now know that those orders probably will not be laid for some time.
Because of that uncertainty, many councils have been losing some of their best officers. Perhaps not surprisingly—one cannot blame them—many have felt it more sensible to take a job in an authority that they know will continue for the foreseeable future, rather than risk remaining in one which, at some time in the next two or three years, could move to unitary status; such a move might leave them either without a job at all, or in a job in which their pay, for one reason or another, was lower. This completely undermines the authorities which we ought to be strengthening in the run-up to unitary authority status, as they are losing some of their best staff.
The problems with these regulations are very much the same as the problems described to us by the Minister more than a year ago when we were discussing redundancy regulations. Those regulations failed entirely to match up to previous reorganisation packages for compensation, and the same is true of the current regulations. These regulations state that compensation for loss of earnings is available for three years; yet, in 1974, open-ended compensation was available. As we have heard, in 1986 compensation was available for six years, with reduced compensation again after that. The fact that aspects of previous schemes were less generous than aspects of the current scheme does not make up for the problems caused where the current scheme is less generous than previous schemes.
Other matters add to the view that there is a lack of generosity under this scheme compared with previous schemes. There is the fact that increments that people might have been expecting will not be included in the compensation package. Staff will lose the value of any assumed increments, at least, if they move to another less well-paid job. Someone who serves for less than a year is excluded from the package altogether. I see no reason to suppose that, just because someone has served less than a year, he should be excluded from the package.
That measure has one particular danger as well. Some people who are moving into authorities are taking over from other officers who wanted to leave to assure their future. It will be particularly difficult to recruit staff to fill the positions where good officers have left early to make their future more secure. If we are to say to those very people whom we are trying to recruit to fill those vital posts that they will not get the compensation package that other officers will get, it will be even more difficult to fill those posts before unitary status arrives.
If the increments are not to be taken into account—as has been made clear, despite what the Minister said earlier—there may still be a difficulty over pension payments, as people may lose out. The fact that reductions in leave entitlement will not be taken into account is another example of how the current compensation package is not as generous as it could and should have been.
There is one important point about the regulations that has not yet been mentioned. Regulation 4(h) refers to those working variable hours who are to be excluded from the regulations, which is a significant problem. What it does not say is that those whose variable hours are reduced because of a change in their job when a new unitary authority takes over will be included. Instead, it says that all who have a contract to work variable hours will be excluded, even if that change has come about simply because of the change of authority and the need to take on a new job. That is grossly unfair to the many people on variable hours contracts.
It could mean that people who may have worked an average of 40 hours a week on a variable hours contract will in future not be given any compensation if they move to a job where, on average, their hours are reduced to only 20 hours a week.

Mr. Thomason: The hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting that, if somebody who has been working for 40 hours has his hours reduced to 20, he should then be paid double for a period of three years for working only half the hours that he previously worked. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that?

Mr. Rendel: I am suggesting that compensation should be due to somebody who has found that, through no fault of his own but purely because the Government have set up a new unitary authority, his pay level has been drastically reduced because of the need to change jobs, for which he cannot be blamed. I think it entirely fair that such people should get the same compensation as others who may change to jobs where they work less hard, with much better conditions of service.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am following the careful and sensitive way in which the hon. Gentleman advances his case. However, as far as I can recall, he has not yet mentioned the council tax payer or the income tax payer. How does what he describes relate to the private sector, where, unfortunately, many people find themselves out of a job, through no fault of their own, because of a change in the market? How does the hon. Gentleman compare local government with other sectors of the economy? Surely they cannot be divorced.

Mr. Rendel: That is an interesting argument. There are regulations that cover redundancy in the private sector. The hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting that this whole compensation package, which will inevitably fall on the taxpayer, should be thrown out. I shall wait with interest to see whether he will vote against it tonight. The logic behind his argument was that it was wrong for the taxpayer to have to pay any sort of compensation when someone had to change his job as a result of the Government's reorganisation of local government.
There is no reason to exclude from the compensation package people who work on variable hours contracts. We have already been told that the calculation of

compensation for fees is to be based on an average amount earned over the previous five years. The same principle could easily be applied to the people I have mentioned. It would be reasonable to calculate what average hours they had been working over a previous period and allow for that level of compensation when they have to change their jobs.
It is not an insignificant problem—some 900,000 local authority employees work part-time. Of course, not all of them are affected by the change. Some will not be working in areas that will become unitary authorities, but many will. There is also an increasing trend towards variable hours contracts, so the problem is, if anything, becoming more important day by day.
Regulation 4(h) is especially likely to be important to people such as home helps, non-teaching school staff, grounds maintenance workers and many other local authority manual workers. It is poorly worded, and I fear that it will be an opening for exploitation of staff by employers. At the very least, it needs some qualification to make it clear that it should apply only to cases where there has been a genuine change of employment rather than a change of job because of the introduction of the unitary structure.
Regulation 4(h) should be deleted altogether. It is not possible, however, to make such a change, which is reason enough to throw out the regulations in their entirety and instruct the Government to introduce some new ones even though to do so would cause further delay, which would, I acknowledge, cause extra worries for local authority workers. We do not yet know what the outcome of the vote tonight will be, although it is interesting that some Conservative Members seem to think that the regulations should be thrown out. Will the Minister clarify what the Government mean by the regulation? After all, if local authority staff find themselves in conflict with their employers as a result of regulation 4(h), it will be important for the Minister to specify exactly how it should be interpreted.
I conclude on the point with which I started. The entire local government review has been an on/off affair—proposals were going through but then delayed, and the Government ducked and dived, issued guidelines beyond their legal powers and now seem to have run out of stamina altogether. People have been kept guessing and waiting to see what compensation they would receive, and will now have to wait for at least a further two years as a result of yesterday's announcement.
It is bad enough that the public have been kept waiting and guessing what would happen to their future relationship with their local authority, but it is much worse that local government staff have been kept waiting. The Government have been grossly insensitive. Finally, at the end of a long dark tunnel, staff have been offered a wholly inadequate compensation package. That shows how little the Government think of local democracy and, in particular, of the public servants who make it work on our behalf.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: There was clearly a speech to be made in support of the prayer which the Labour party tabled against the regulations. Even if one does not agree with the final analysis, there was a speech to be made—and the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) made it. We do not have to agree with all his


conclusions to say that he made a typically passionate and eloquent speech. It is with some sadness that I have to say that it was a speech that one might like to have heard from the Opposition Dispatch Box.
It has been my unhappy privilege to see the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) operate a number of times. It is immensely sad to hear interventions responded to with derision, personal invective and contempt but, in the years during which it has been my misfortune to deal with him, he has been prepared to behave in that way. As I said, there was a speech to be made, and it is a pity that, not for the first time—and, I suspect, not for the last time—we did not hear it from the hon. Gentleman.
It is possible to agree with the proposition that, during the winding-up of a council and the establishment of a new unitary authority, people employed by the defunct authority, who may have been so employed for many years, will feel a certain insecurity or even bitterness at the fact that their jobs are going to disappear. The problem is that, just as parliamentary constituencies exist not for the benefit of those who represent them but as a service to the public—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Constituencies can disappear, too.

Mr. Nicholls: Indeed. Constituencies exist not for the benefit of those who represent, or occupy, them but as a service to the public, and the same principle applies to local government jobs.
Underpinning the speech of the hon. Member for Stockton, North and, indeed, even that of the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), was the assumption that what is being done to the councils that are disappearing is so wrong that we must offer levels of compensation far above what the taxpayer can afford. It is a key point because it is easy, with straightforward human sympathy, to say that we should increase the compensation package. At the end of the day, however, it is the taxpayer who pays. I am sure that the rhetoric exists whereby one can say that the rich should pay, but ultimately 89 per cent. of income tax is paid by basic rate taxpayers. Whenever one brings a compensation package before the House of Commons, one has to bear in mind who is paying for it. Such compensation packages are paid for not by the Government or the Treasury but by taxpayers.

Ms Hilary Armstrong: rose—

Mr. Nicholls: I shall give way to the hon. Lady in a moment.
It is very easy to say that, if the package were a little better, it would be okay. I do not know of any way in which one can say that a compensation package is completely correct. To use an old phrase, it is a question of balance. Subject to a point that I shall make after I have given way to the hon. Lady, the compensation package in the regulations is basically right.

Ms Armstrong: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he refused his ministerial severance pay?

Mr. Nicholls: That is typical of the level of homework that we have come to expect from the Labour Front-Bench

team. I did not qualify for ministerial redundancy pay. I should make it perfectly clear to the hon. Lady that, had I done so, I would have been extremely grateful and would not have demanded even more. I hope that that clarifies the position for the hon. Lady. If it does not, I am sorry. It was a straightforward answer to an irrelevant question.
Aspects of any compensation package need to be considered. My right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) referred to a point that concerned me and that was partly answered by my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration. My right hon. Friend referred to what might happen to those who receive a redundancy package and go straight into a job the following day. That is not a fanciful scenario. The most extraordinary wastage of money occurs when councils die. One has only to cast one's mind back to 1986 when the Greater London council finally went down. There was an extraordinary wastage of money on a massive fireworks display. I remember sitting on the Terrace watching all the London taxpayers' money going up into the sky.
Judging from a report in The Guardian, there was also a dispute over whether the GLC would be able to give away the £26 million left in its coffers to voluntary organisations. Such memories—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has been present throughout the debate and heard me advise other hon. Members on its scope. He is quite wide of that scope.

Mr. Nicholls: The only point that I was making was that the public will be concerned at the way in which money will be used by local authorities that are to disappear. It is relevant to make the point that the public will be concerned if they find that somebody can be made redundant one day and walk into a similar position—perhaps an even a better position—the following day with a successor authority. My right hon. Friend the Member for Selby and I are concerned about that.
I wonder whether that problem had been anticipated by my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench and whether the way in which to stop it had been anticipated in regulation 4(d). As I understood my hon. Friend the Minister, no other regulations are to be laid. It is troubling—perhaps the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), will deal with the matter in his winding-up speech or write to me about it—that it was made perfectly clear that the package does not have any effect on the general operation of the law. Whatever rights and privileges exist in law at the moment remain.
At the law stands, if one is made redundant in an authority, there will not be anything wrong in taking another position the following day. Far be it from me to put difficulties in the way of my right hon. and hon. Friends, but it may be no easy task to frame the regulations so that, when true redundancies arise because a council has gone under, a person can be stopped from walking into another position right away. That must be considered.
It is easy enough to say that the package is not quite right and that there should be a little more here or there, as did the hon. Member for Newbury, who will be able to


cut up his speech from Hansard and distribute different bits of it around his constituency to create a particular effect in a particular way. Even though the compensation package is fair and right, the public will take an entirely view of it if they find that, despite the efforts that have been made, it is possible for people to walk off with substantial redundancy payments and be re-employed almost at once. That would greatly discredit the regulations and should be considered, even if it cannot be dealt with entirely in this debate.

Mr. Alan Simpson: The Minister referred to the fact that the debate is taking place on St. Valentine's day. I should admit that I was so keen to be called that I took the trouble to send a Valentine to Madam Speaker. It might be helpful if I clarify that the terms of my billet doux were addressed to her rather than to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Any terms of affection come to an end there, however, because I must express my great sadness and disappointment at, and disagreement with, the mean-minded regulations and the chaotic mismanagement of the transition and change into which they place us.
I should, however, express gratitude to the Minister because, in his opening remarks, he attempted to explain the regulations in the context of the transitional timetable and arrangements that he has brought forward. I shall concentrate most of my remarks on the specific problems consequently facing authorities such as Nottingham.
Nottingham is one of the authorities that is in the programme but not in the timetable. In such a situation, the regulations only add to the problems of chaos, confusion and demoralisation with which we are having to deal.
The Minister said that he wanted the programme to give local authorities a sporting chance to be ready for elections in May. I thank the Minister and his Department for the way in which they have continued with the preparatory work in Nottingham even though a re-review was taking place, not of Nottingham but of adjoining districts.
Huge progress has been made in preparation for the transition. Many of the difficult discussions about the terms of transfer of staff, the specific structure of services and the location and relocation of jobs could be addressed within the timetable. But in that context, there has been huge disappointment—and now confusion—about the situation in which the authority has been left. Nottingham is in a programme but not in a timetable, and its discussions with its staff have been thrown into absolute confusion. We are talking about staff who would legitimately like to know whether they will have a post in the new authority, and, if so, whether it will be the same post or a different one.
The city authority is preparing to assume unitary status, but has no legal authority to do so, so it is having to incur a large tranche of transitional costs—often on short or fixed-term appointments—in an attempt to develop a basis upon which a smooth transition from employment in the county to employment in the city can take place. It now lacks a timetable within which that can be delivered. Moreover, the county authority has to deliver its own services and faces serious pressures on its budget.
The staff who may be affected by the transition do not know whether they will be caught up in a game of pass the parcel—whether they will be part of a group affected by their relocation out of the city to secure their employment, but where the services that they currently deliver in the city will be run down; or whether they will be recruited into permanent employment that relates to the city, in the hope that the city will take on those posts in a framework that the city cannot yet define; or whether they will be relocated into the city in the belief that the county will have played pass the parcel with the relocation and remuneration costs.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Member is making a good case and is being helpful to the area that he represents. Does not the problem lie with Nottinghamshire county council, rather than Nottingham city council—which is due to become a unitary authority and, therefore, likely to take on rather than lay off staff? I presume that the hon. Gentleman supports the Government's decision that Nottingham city council should become a unitary authority.
I support Warrington borough council and Halton borough council, both in Cheshire, becoming unitary authorities—something that is supported by most Labour Members and by my borough council, which also sought unitary status but, sadly, did not get it, despite the support of the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle), the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall) and me. Is it not a problem for county councils rather than city councils, which as unitary authorities will provide more, rather than fewer, jobs?

Mr. Simpson: It is not as simple as that. I have always been a supporter of a unitary Nottingham, but it is not clear whether the city, when it takes over from the county, will seek to deliver services exactly as they are currently structured. It has gone to considerable lengths to offer reassurances to staff, but it cannot offer guaranteed assurances because it does not have a timetable. The staff are caught in limbo because the city cannot guarantee the nature of jobs that will be on offer or even when they will be on offer.
The staff are quite properly saying to both authorities, "You have a responsibility to treat us properly. We do a decent day's work and we make a commitment to deliver good services. We do not know whether the services that we are asked to deliver now will be the ones the city will decide to deliver or that it will deliver them as they are currently delivered. No one can give us those assurances because the Government have failed to define a timetable in which the order will be laid and a transition date." Both local authorities have to step back from proper and responsible commitments that they would want to make in relation to their staff. It is almost impossible to see how these regulations will be applied in the context of authorities such as Nottingham without a timetable in which to work.

Mr. David Jamieson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has completely missed the point? In Nottingham and Plymouth, the county runs social services and education. The jobs of the officers who currently deliver those services in Nottingham and Plymouth are threatened. Although the new unitary


authority is employing more people, the officers of the authority that is currently delivering many of the vital services are threatened by these proposals.

Mr. Simpson: That is exactly the case. Quite properly, the city authority is able to employ additional people only on temporary contracts. It wants to offer proper, open recruitment for the permanent jobs it is to provide. Nottingham cannot do that until it acquires the authority to do so. The county is having to look in a different direction and it is reducing its assumed commitments in relation to the city. These regulations fail to cover the circumstances affecting the staff who do the transition work.
In many ways, the problems will be compounded by the extended transitional period, because talented staff will look for an opportunity to move to a secure post, with a defined set of prospects to deliver new services—possibly in some of the new unitary authorities. The county will then find it almost impossible to recruit their replacements because of uncertainty about prospects. These regulations will mean that anyone who has only one year's service will not be covered by the terms of compensation and remuneration. Both authorities will be caught in a nightmare. It will be impossible for the county to recruit because it is refocusing, and it will be impossible for the city to recruit because it has no legitimate focus to do so. There will be a lot of staff in pursuit of secure employment elsewhere.
The staff in the two authorities are in utter confusion, as are the public in Nottingham and Nottinghamshire. They find the position in which the Government have placed them incomprehensible. They cannot understand the delay and I suspect that the same would be true in Plymouth. In a local context, they can understand it less than many other authorities because, just beyond the doorstep, there is a programme of change already under way in Rutland, which has a population of 30,000. I must say with a certain amount of deference that Rutland probably has more windsurfers than workers, but in Nottingham, which has a population of 300,000 and a large number of staff in the two local authorities, it is impossible to carry out the cautious and responsible planning that both authorities seek to do.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The rational way in which the hon. Gentleman is tackling the problem is helping the debate. I was a local councillor some years ago and it is my experience that there is pretty good co-operation between counties and most boroughs or districts. Is not it sensible and more than likely that Nottingham city council, as a unitary authority, will take on the majority of those who are currently employed in the city boundaries, to undertake responsibilities that currently lie in the jurisdiction of Nottinghamshire county council?

Mr. Simpson: In normal circumstances that might be correct, but there has been legitimate political disagreement—I suspect the same is true in many other areas—about whether the transfer of responsibilities should have occurred in the first place. I believe that, in Nottingham, an accord has now been worked out—although the two authorities have not always been of one mind. Those who face further delays will find that that

accord will begin to break down. If the county council decides in its forward planning that it would be helpful to relocate staff that it did not want into the city to let the city deal with them on transition, it is unlikely that the city would make an open commitment to those staff. The city has a commitment to take on responsibility for delivering services, but not necessarily in the same way as the county has delivered them.
I am trying to point out that if one tries to apply the regulations to that indeterminate transition process, they simply do not work. We have a recipe for even greater chaos than we had two days ago before the Minister's non-announcement. I do not think that there is any rational basis for leaving the marooned authorities in such a position. I suspect that Plymouth has been making similar strides preparing for the change that would have happened if the shadow elections had taken place this May. Nottingham has done that with the support and help of the Department of the Environment. It is absolutely ready—the local authority is ready, the public are ready and the staff are ready. The only explanation that makes sense locally is that the Conservative party is not ready.
In the elections last year, the Conservatives had huge difficulty in getting candidates to stand and they had to dragoon the dog, the cat and the budgie to field a full team of candidates. The dog, the cat and the budgie have served notice that they are not willing to stand again, and the Conservatives are in a panic. That is how the delay is explained at local level. The public employees and the public will pay the political price of this delay and uncertainty.
Under the regulations, staff in the two authorities, especially those in the county, will have poorer protection and poorer compensation. The authorities will find it impossible to plan services and impossible to deliver job guarantees. With the absence of a timetable, there will be a haemorrhage of talented staff and a blight on the recruitment of new staff. There will be a huge increase in transitional costs as a result of wholly unnecessary delays.
The Minister and the Government should make a commitment to three things tonight. They should make a commitment to the authorities that have been left in limbo that within the next couple of weeks, they will lay the orders that will define the timetable in which transition will take place. They should make a commitment that they will extend the compensation cover for the current staff to at least the level offered in reorganisations a decade ago and they should introduce proposals for additional compensation that will cover the otherwise avoidable transitional costs incurred by those authorities as a result of recruitment blight and for the temporary contract staff whom the authorities have had to take on.

Mr. Roy Thomason: Much has been made of the reorganisation that took place in 1986 and the regulations introduced at that time. There may be a few of us in the Chamber who can remember the 1974 reorganisation and the considerable staff problems associated with that. Some of us remember the senior officers who were peeled off local authorities as the proud traditions of the county boroughs were lost and subsumed into extraordinary creations such as the county of Cleveland and the county of Avon.
How welcome it is, therefore, to see that process reversed in a manner that will give opportunities to officers who are often at the second or third tier in the


current county councils to become seniors in the new authorities. We are much more likely in this reorganisation to see opportunities for career moves to be made and for greater responsibilities to be taken by local government officers than under the reverse process which occurred in 1974. We should, therefore, see this process in that historical context.
I now turn to Labour's attitude in tabling the prayer today. I find it extraordinary that a measure that was laid before the House in the middle of November and came into effect on 28 November should be the subject of a prayer that was laid on 10 January this year. I understand that Labour Members have a Christmas holiday and have all sorts of things to do over that period, such as, no doubt, choosing to which schools to send their children. However, I find it extraordinary that there should be such a delay over what we have been told this evening is an issue of great importance. It is apparently of such great importance that the Labour party could wait a couple of months before it tabled its prayer. It appeared in the Order Paper of 10 January 1996. There it is, as large as life. There is the prayer and that is the date.
I understand that it takes a little time for a prayer to be presented to the House. The fact is, however, that nearly two months went by before that action was taken in this case.
It is interesting that the Labour party appears to be joined, in some of its representations, by the local government associations. Is it possible that the fact that the cost of the regulations will be met by the general taxpayer, not the council tax payer, has something to do with their determination to bring pressure to bear to obtain what are alleged to be better terms?
Staff welfare is the most important issue, although members of the Labour party appear to be keen to ignore it. The regulations pivot around that point. Staff are entitled to some certainty about their future, yet the prayer would prevent them from having that certainty about their future because it would delay the implementation of proposals designed to help them when that reorganisation takes place—in the case of some authorities, in a few weeks' time. Surely the Labour party is not suggesting that the consultation procedure that the Government introduced previously should not be repeated for any amended proposals.

Mr. Elliot Morley: The hon. Gentleman said that he cared about the impact on staff and he is right to care, but he also mentioned the 1974 reorganisation, which was undertaken by a Conservative Government. The present reorganisation is being undertaken by a Conservative Government, but there are two differences. First, the scheme that we are discussing is not as generous as the scheme for the 1974 reorganisation and, secondly, the 1974 reorganisation was a reorganisation of large counties, and all staff had equal opportunities to apply for vacancies in the new authorities.
In the forthcoming reorganisation, when an authority passes to unitary status, as in the case of my authority, North Lincolnshire, the advantage lies with staff who were with county councils, because they have managed larger departments and received higher salaries. Many district council staff have been unfairly disadvantaged in the reorganisation, yet the compensation scheme is not as generous as the 1974 scheme. How can the hon. Gentleman justify that?

Mr. Thomason: I do not accept that district council staff will be, on the whole, disadvantaged by the proposals.

Mr. Morley: I have been through this—I know.

Mr. Thomason: Perhaps some extraordinary recruitment procedures are being adopted by some Labour-controlled councils, but, on the whole, district council staff should not be disadvantaged, and, where proper recruitment procedures are followed, they will not be disadvantaged. The responsibilities that they bear for district council functions will remain in the new unitary authorities. County staff will be added to district staff to form the new unitary authorities. For example, opportunities for directors of education will be created in a series of authorities. There will be new jobs throughout local government. I believe that the career prospects of many authority officers will be considerably enhanced as a result of the changes.
It is fascinating that the Labour party gets excited about the proposals at a time when the local government associations, which I criticised a few moments ago for being anxious to spend taxpayers' money, say that settlement of the proposals is essential. Their briefing, which no doubt many hon. Members have received, says:
It is vital now that … staff, who face reorganisation a mere 6 weeks away, know where they stand as soon as possible.
Obviously it is essential that the order receives its passage today and that the regulations are implemented.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my hon. Friend agree that the scheme that we are debating follows two separate consultation exercises and that, during those consultation exercises with all those who were interested and involved, several positive changes were made, which were fully appreciated by all authorities concerned?
Is it not the case that many authorities, especially in Cheshire—such as Halton and Warrington borough councils, which campaigned strongly with me, through their Members of Parliament, for unitary status—have had an input into the two separate consultation exercises, which obviously resulted in many changes to the original scheme?

Mr. Thomason: I am most grateful for that point. The regulations have indeed been the subject of a great deal of consultation, and many in local government have expressed their gratitude to central Government for the amendments made to the original proposals in the light of their representations.
I therefore wonder what the Labour party is up to today. Have the trade union paymasters decided that they want their puppets to speak? Is a requirement being imposed on some Labour Members to dance to their paymasters' tune? Is this an example of new Labour being operated by old unions?
I should like to close with a word about the cost implications. When the metropolitan counties were abolished and the metropolitan districts took over unitary responsibilities, there were substantial savings for the taxpayer. If the local authorities are prepared to grasp the opportunities that this reorganisation affords, they too will make substantial savings for the council tax payer and—for the purposes of grant—for the general taxpayer. These


opportunities are encapsulated in the terms of the regulations in so far as they relate to staff. I commend them to the House.

Mr. David Jamieson: I was interested to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason). I will not join in his blistering attack on the Conservative Government of the 1970s who brought about the last local government reorganisation. It was also interesting to hear the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) who, as usual, spread balm over our proceedings with his comments, which are always welcome for their creation of cross-party accord. It was, however, a pity that he did not deal with Devon, where his own constituency is to be found. I will endeavour to fill the gap that he left in his speech.
The regulations arise from the reorganisation of local government, and the unitary status that Plymouth and Nottingham, for instance, will enjoy is greatly welcomed. It is supported by almost all the Conservatives in my area and by all in the Labour party. There is strong feeling in Plymouth about the fact that many aspects of our local government have been controlled from Exeter, which is 40 miles away and considerably smaller than Plymouth. That has been a bone of contention in the area. Unitary status will enable local services to be delivered closer to local people.
Like the Minister, we are anxious for an effective transfer of power from the one authority to the other. Education and social services are the most important aspects in this context. I contend that, to achieve high-quality services, we need dedicated local government officers whose morale is high. To deliver services of value, the officers delivering the services must feel valued. There is thus a close relationship between the standard of services and the interests of the people who deliver them.
Unfortunately, with yesterday's announcement, the Government have inflicted on Plymouth, Nottingham and other areas subject to delay the worst possible option not just for the services but for the officers who are trying to deliver them. Reorganisation was announced, then there was equivocation over the timing and now it is to be delayed from 1997 to 1998 or possibly beyond. As he has delayed the introduction of the orders for Plymouth and Nottingham, will the Minister give a date tonight for when the Government intend to bring them in?
The regulations seek to compensate local government officers whose jobs have been reorganised. Several hon. Members have said that it is mean and poor compensation. We must think of its effect on local services. The reorganisation and the delay have created uncertainty where certainty is essential for delivering high-quality services. They have blighted services and inhibited forward planning.
There is one point that I especially want the Minister to answer. Some of the best officers in Plymouth, and I am sure in other places, working in the best interests of delivering services, have been planning in anticipation of the implementation of the orders. In Plymouth, especially on education, there has been much good work over nearly

18 months. To their great credit, several officers have taken on the role of undertaking the pre-planning that is essential to keeping services going and making sure that there is an effective transfer of power from one authority to the other.
What will happen after May this year to officers who have accepted new posts in anticipation of the changes if the changes occur in less than 12 months by May 1997? If the new jobs with the new authority were then changed, would those officers have protection under the regulations? If they have not, we will be inflicting punishment on the very officers who are doing the loyal job of trying to perform a seamless handover of powers from one authority to another. I suspect that the regulations are a recipe for non-co-operation from those officers, who will fear for their jobs. The Minister must give some reassurance on that.
There is more uncertainty where certainty is absolutely required. Local government officers who are unsure of their future, as the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) said, will go to other areas where there is certainty. Areas such as Plymouth will lose their better officers as they plump for authorities whose future is known rather than staying where there is uncertainty. It affects not only Plymouth but the whole county. All the authorities that are not being reorganised are strategically affected. We have the absurd prospect next year in Devon of having county council elections by which councillors will be elected to serve one year on a dying authority while at the same time we have elections for the new unitary authority for the people who will take over their functions in a year's time. I would be interested to hear the Minister's views on that.
In the interest of the services that are provided for local people, we need to protect those who are running the services. The regulations and yesterday's announcement of delay create more uncertainty where we need certainty. To achieve that certainty and high-quality services, we need a proper and sympathetic package of compensation for the staff and, in the case of Devon, an end to the delay and the early forging of a new authority in both Plymouth and Torbay.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I shall be brief, as I know that my hon. Friend the Minister wants, 10 minutes to respond to this important debate.
I come from Cheshire, where there is some proposed, change. I wish that the change were greater than the Government have permitted. As we stand, Warrington borough, an old county borough, and Halton borough council will become unitary authorities. As the Minister knows, I made an excellent case, with the borough council, that was widely supported by the public, for unitary status for Macclesfield. We have an excellent council, super officers and a slimmed-down administration that is very competent to take over responsibility from Cheshire county council for education and social services. Moreover, we have a united council: its super Conservative leader, Mrs. Margaret Duddy, and the Liberal Democrats and Labour were united in wanting unitary status for a competent authority.
My borough council goes along with the compensation scheme, believing that in 1996 it is reasonable. Mention has been made of the 1980s and early 1970s, when there


was a major reorganisation of local government. We do not live in the 1970s or the 1980s now; we live in the 1990s. As I said in an intervention on the speech by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), we cannot isolate local government from the realities of business throughout the country; we cannot provide exceptional compensation schemes for those in local government if similar schemes do not exist in the commercial private sector.
Although I support the call for timetables for local government, which has come from hon. Members on both sides of the House, I believe that on balance the compensation scheme will not allow the taxpayer, and the council tax payer, to be exploited. I think that the balance is about right. My borough council supports the scheme, and—given its expertise in running local government—if it supports the scheme, its Member of Parliament does likewise.

Mr. Curry: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall reply to the debate.
A number of detailed points have been raised; I shall respond by letter to those with which I cannot deal tonight.
Fearing that there might be some confusion between my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) and me, I sought clarification. Such is the romance of the evening that almost no one is obtainable in my Department, for reasons with which I sympathise and, indeed, have a certain empathy.

Mr. Dobson: Surely not the Secretary of State!

Mr. Curry: I shall refrain from saying anything that might open up a war on two fronts. I shall, however, ensure that the hon. Gentleman and I are at one in regard to what is possible and what is not.

Mr. Den Dover: Why are those covered by the Teachers Superannuation Consolidation Regulations not covered by this scheme? I take it that the reorganisation does not really affect teachers, so they should not lose out in salary terms. Is that the reason?

Mr. Curry: Teachers are transferred en bloc to the new authorities, and those regulations are transferred with them. In practice, they have new employers, but that is the only novel aspect of their position.
Let me tell the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) that Plymouth will become a unitary authority, subject to the agreement of the House of Commons and the other place. I appreciate what he said about the extent to which the authority is valued by officials who work for it. I shall not reply in detail to his point about elections for local authorities—I shall write to him—but orders are able to defer elections or, indeed, mandates. It is possible for us to make orders that will make it unnecessary for an election that would immediately be superseded by another to take place.

Mr. Simpson: rose—

Mr. Curry: I am replying to the question posed by the hon. Member for Devonport, which may well deal with the hon. Gentleman's point.
There has been a delay in Devon because the commission had to examine the case for Exeter. We had to receive representations not really from those asking us to accept or reject the recommendation for change, but from those asking for yet another re-examination of the position.
One cannot anticipate the outcome of that consultation, although we intend to draw the threads together as soon as we possibly can, so that we may clarify the circumstances for people. I intend to bring forward the orders as soon as they have cleared the statutory processes that are required. In other words, I intend to consult on the details of the orders, because we must get the details right. It is my intention that even if the process of reorganisation in constitutional terms may not start as early as we had hoped, the certainty of what will happen will be established. In psychological terms, that will be important for everybody.

Mr. Simpson: May I direct the Minister's attention to Nottingham? The re-review that took place in Nottingham was of the adjoining boroughs, and the Minister gave his departmental staff all the time they needed to go through the preparatory stages. In the light of that, is he able to give a date for the transition of Nottingham to a unitary authority?

Mr. Curry: I have made it clear that we intend to announce the outcome of the consultation process that follows the local government commission's new review and to introduce the orders as soon as we are able to do so. I do not want it to last longer than anybody else. As the hon. Gentleman said, quite fairly, Nottinghamshire districts were involved in the re-review. One would not want reorganisations in the same county in successive years. That would be one transition too many, and I think that the hon. Gentleman understands that.
The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) asked about pensions. I shall write to him in detail on that. I think that he was asking me to make a projection of where people's salaries would have gone had they continued in their old employment. It would have been a very difficult operation to anticipate all the circumstances. That is my off-the-cuff remark, but I shall, of course, write to him with the specific details of that matter and put the case fully.
There have been some misunderstandings. For example, it would be curious—although not illegal—if a transferring authority took the decision to regrade staff a year or more before the reorganisation took place and lost the functions and responsibilities that I presume the staff had helped to provide. We had to draw a line somewhere. That is true of all legislation. It is not the case that employees must have been in post for at least 18 months. They must have been in employment on 1 April in the year before reorganisation.
They could suffer a drop in salary a couple of months later and be entitled to detriment compensation. Equally, they could take a cut in hours and still receive detriment compensation. No one will be forced to take a worse paid job, because the normal protection afforded by employment law is unaffected and the staff cannot be forced to accept worse terms and conditions. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before the Minister continues, it is increasingly difficult to hear him, largely because of background conversations on both sides of the House.

Mr. Curry: I shall try to bring some passion to the debate on the detriment compensation for local government employees who have to suffer reorganisation. I am anxious to respond to some quite detailed points, which I know are of concern to those affected, so I hope that the House will excuse me if I perhaps forgo my normal peroration to try to give more detail, which is necessary.
On compensation for the loss of variable hours pay, it is difficult to determine the changes in variable hours pay that result from reorganisation from those that result from natural fluctuations in a variable working week. By definition, that would be difficult.
I repeat that we do not intend to permit a situation whereby people can be compensated and walk out of one job and straight into another and collect a salary. We shall amend the regulations to close any door that would lead to that. An American philosopher said that the best way to leave any place was through the door. At this hour I am sure that the House will understand if I do that and respond to further points in writing.
I commend the regulations to the House. They are fair, reasonable and honourable and they will give a new and a good start to the new unitary authorities. They are worth our support.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 255, Noes 293.

Division No. 55]
[10.00 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Chisholm, Malcolm


Ainger, Nick
Church, Judith


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clapham, Michael


Allen, Graham
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Armstrong, Hilary
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Coffey, Ann


Ashton, Joe
Cohen, Harry


Austin-Walker, John
Connarty, Michael


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Barnes, Harry
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Barron, Kevin
Corbett, Robin


Battle, John
Corston, Jean


Bayley, Hugh
Cousins, Jim


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Cox, Tom


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Cummings, John


Bell, Stuart
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Bennett, Andrew F
Dafis, Cynog


Benton, Joe
Dalyell, Tam


Bermingham, Gerald
Darling, Alistair


Berry, Roger
Davidson, Ian


Blunkett, David
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Boateng, Paul
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bradley, Keith
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Denham, John


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Dewar, Donald


Burden, Richard
Dixon, Don


Byers, Stephen
Dobson, Frank


Caborn, Richard
Donohoe, Brian H


Callaghan, Jim
Dowd, Jim


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Eagle, Ms Angela


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Eastham, Ken


Campbell-Savours, D N
Etherington, Bill


Canavan, Dennis
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Chidgey, David
Fatchett, Derek





Faulds, Andrew
McLeish, Henry


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
McMaster, Gordon


Fisher, Mark
McNamara, Kevin


Flynn, Paul
McWilliam, John


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Madden, Max


Foster, Don (Bath)
Maddock, Diana


Fyfe, Maria
Mahon, Alice


Galbraith, Sam
Mandelson, Peter


Galloway, George
Marek, Dr John


Gapes, Mike
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Garrett, John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


George, Bruce
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)


Gerrard, Neil
Maxton, John


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Meacher, Michael


Godman, Dr Norman A
Meale, Alan


Godsiff, Roger
Michael, Alun


Golding, Mrs Llin
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Gordon, Mildred
Milburn, Alan


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Miller, Andrew


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Grocott, Bruce
Morgan, Rhodri


Gunnell, John
Morley, Elliot


Hain, Peter
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Hall, Mike
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hanson, David
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Hardy, Peter
Mudie, George


Harman, Ms Harriet
Mullin, Chris


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Murphy, Paul


Henderson, Doug
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Heppell, John
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hinchliffe, David
O'Hara, Edward


Hodge, Margaret
Olner, Bill


Hoey, Kate
O'Neill, Martin


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Pearson, Ian


Home Robertson, John
Pendry, Tom


Hood, Jimmy
Pickthall, Colin


Hoon, Geoffrey
Pike, Peter L


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Pope, Greg


Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hoyle, Doug
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Primarolo, Dawn


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Purchase, Ken


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hutton, John
Radios, Giles


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Randall, Stuart


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Raynsford, Nick


Jamieson, David
Reid, Dr John


Janner, Greville
Rendel, David


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Rogers, Allan


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Rooker, Jeff


Jowell, Tessa
Rooney, Terry


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Keen, Alan
Rowlands, Ted


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Ruddock, Joan


Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)
Sedgemore, Brian


Khabra, Piara S
Sheerman, Barry


Kilfoyle, Peter
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Kirkwood, Archy
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Short, Clare


Litherland, Robert
Simpson, Alan


Livingstone, Ken
Skinner, Dennis


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Loyden, Eddie
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Lynne, Ms Liz
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McAvoy, Thomas
Soley, Clive


McCartney, Ian
Spearing, Nigel


McCartney, Robert
Spellar, John


Macdonald, Calum
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


McFall, John
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


McKelvey, William
Steinberg, Gerry


Mackinlay, Andrew
Stevenson, George






Stott, Roger
Welsh, Andrew


Strang, Dr. Gavin
Wicks, Malcolm


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Wigley, Dafydd


Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (SW'n W)


Timms, Stephen
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Touhig, Don
Winnick, David


Trickett, Jon
Wise, Audrey


Turner, Dennis
Worthington, Tony



Wray, Jimmy


Tyler, Paul
Wright, Dr Tony


Vaz, Keith
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold



Wallace, James
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Mr. David Clelland and


Watson, Mike
Mr. Eric Martlew.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Alexander, Richard
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Couchman, James


Amess, David
Cran, James


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Arbuthnot, James
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Ashby, David
Day, Stephen


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Dicks, Terry


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Dover, Den


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Duncan, Alan


Baldry, Tony
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Dunn, Bob


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Bates, Michael
Dykes, Hugh


Bellingham, Henry
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim


Bendall, Vivian
Elletson, Harold


Beresford, Sir Paul
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Body, Sir Richard
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Booth, Hartley
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Boswell, Tim
Evennett, David


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Faber, David


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Fabricant, Michael


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bowis, John
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Fishburn, Dudley


Brazier, Julian
Forman, Nigel


Bright, Sir Graham
Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Forth, Eric


Browning, Mrs Angela
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Burt, Alistair
Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Butcher, John
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Butler, Peter
French, Douglas


Butterfill, John
Fry, Sir Peter


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Gale, Roger


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gallie, Phil


Carrington, Matthew
Gardiner, Sir George


Carttiss, Michael
Garnier, Edward


Cash, William
Gill, Christopher


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Gillan, Cheryl


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Churchill, Mr
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Clappison, James
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Coe, Sebastian
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Colvin, Michael
Grylls, Sir Michael


Congdon, David
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Conway, Derek
Hague, Rt Hon William





Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hampson, Dr Keith
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Nelson, Anthony


Hannam, Sir John
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hargreaves, Andrew
Nicholls, Patrick


Harris, David
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Norris, Steve


Hawkins, Nick
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hawksley, Warren
Oppenheim, Phillip


Heald, Oliver
Ottaway, Richard


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Page, Richard


Hendry, Charles
Paice, James


Hicks, Robert
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Pawsey, James


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Horam, John
Pickles, Eric


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Rathbone, Tim


Hunter, Andrew
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Jack, Michael
Richards, Rod


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Riddick, Graham


Jenkin, Bernard
Robathan, Andrew


Jessel, Toby
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Key, Robert
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Kirkhope, Timothy
Sackville, Tom


Knapman, Roger
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knox, Sir David
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Shersby, Sir Michael


Legg, Barry
Sims, Roger


Leigh, Edward
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lidington, David
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Spink, Dr Robert


Lord, Michael
Spring, Richard


Luff, Peter
Sproat, Iain


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Steen, Anthony


MacKay, Andrew
Stern, Michael


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Stewart, Allan


McLoughlin, Patrick
Sumberg, David


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Sweeney, Walter


Madel, Sir David
Sykes, John


Maitland, Lady Olga
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Major, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Malone, Gerald
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)


Mans, Keith
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Marland, Paul
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Marlow, Tony
Temple-Morris, Peter


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Thomason, Roy


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mates, Michael
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Merchant, Piers
Tracey, Richard


Mills, Iain
Tredinnick, David


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Trend, Michael


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Trotter, Neville


Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James
Twinn, Dr Ian


Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector
Vaughan, Sir Gerard






Viggers, Peter
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Wilkinson, John


Walden, George
Willetts, David


Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Wilshire, David


Waller, Gary
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Ward, John
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)



Wolfson, Mark


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Wood, Timothy


Waterson, Nigel
Yeo, Tim


Watts, John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Wells, Bowen



Whitney, Ray
Tellers for the Noes:


Whittingdale, John
Mr. Gary Streeter and


Widdecombe, Ann
Mr. Giles Brandreth.

Question accordingly negatived.

SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE

Ordered,

That—

(1) the Order of the House [11th December] be further amended as follows—

(a) in paragraph 5, by leaving out the words 'in Scotland on Monday 4th March' and inserting the words 'in the Palace Theatre, Kilmarnock, on Monday 4th March to take Questions for oral answer and';

(b) in paragraph 6, by leaving out the words 'in Scotland' and inserting the words 'in the City Chambers, Glasgow,'; and

(c) in paragraph 7, by leaving out the words 'in Scotland on Monday 22nd April' and inserting the words 'in the Highland Council Building, Inverness, on Monday 22nd April to take Questions for oral answer and';

(2) in respect of the meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee in the Highland Council Building, Inverness, on Monday 22nd April, the Order of the House [11th December] shall have effect with the substitution of the words 'half-past Eleven o'clock' for the words `half-past Ten o'clock' and the Chairman shall interrupt the proceedings at Two o'clock; and

(3) notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 94B (Scottish Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)), notices of questions for Monday 4th March may be given on Tuesday 20th February.—[Mr. Knapman.]

PETITION

Wild Mammals (Protection)

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of 200 branches of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and of Muriel Haig and 60 branches of the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), whose Bill to protect wild mammals received a Second Reading in another place today. I am grateful to the RSPCA, Rona Macdonald and her colleagues for all their assistance.

To lie upon the Table.

Norwich (Road Links)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Knapman.]

Mr. Patrick Thompson: I am pleased to have secured a debate on road links with Norwich, and am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads for once again responding to concerns in East Anglia about the region's transport infrastructure. I know that my hon. Friend is used to responding to Adjournment debates, and it is for that reason that I am pleased that he is here. I also welcome my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor). It is his birthday today, so it is a considerable sacrifice on his part to attend tonight's debate. I appreciate his support and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss), other hon. Members and the Whip—I appreciate support from wherever it may come.
Along with the Norwich and Waveney chamber of commerce and the local newspapers—the Eastern Daily Press and the Evening News—I have long campaigned for improvements to the All and the A47 in particular. Some years ago—I think it was 1985 or thereabouts—I recall driving a heavy goods vehicle all the way from Norwich to London with members of the local press in the cab and television cameras on at least some of the bridges along the way. It was part of a campaign to improve the roads to Norwich, a campaign that I have since continued with the support of my colleagues who represent Norfolk and the surrounding area.
That journey was interesting. I think that I caused a traffic jam because I was not driving quite as fast as I should have been to keep up with the normal heavy goods vehicle traffic. In view of this impending debate, last Monday I decided to take a particular interest in my journey from Norwich to London. I left Norwich at 12.20 pm and reached the Attleborough bypass, but, at about 1 pm, there was an accident further down the single carriageway. I then had to take a very roundabout, cross-country route to Thetford and eventually reached London at 4.15 pm. From Newmarket onwards there was a clear run, but, once again, there were serious problems in Norfolk caused by the single carriageway. Even that journey last Monday illustrates my point, which is that there are still serious bottlenecks on the route from Norwich to London.
Not everyone realises that every single important entry route into Norwich, whether it is the A17 from Newark and Sleaford, the A47 from Peterborough and Wisbech or the All from London, forms a single carriageway as it crosses the Norfolk boundary. People in Norfolk are therefore right to say that we have not yet done enough to improve our roads.
There has been genuine concern in Norwich about the prospects for economic growth and employment following the sale of Colmans and job losses at Nestle. Leading business men in the city felt it essential to address the challenge of providing new markets and work for local people rather than waiting for some fairy godmother to appear.
That positive response led to the creation in January of the new Norwich area development agency under the chairmanship of Malcolm Wall. I pay tribute to the


agency's stimulus, which has widened the debate on the prospects of Norwich, Norfolk in general and our transport links in particular.
There is no need for undue gloom. Norwich's role as the capital of Norfolk and the regional centre of East Anglia is well known. The strength of the city's economy lies in its wide range of industrial and commercial companies that operate in manufacturing and the service sector. The decline in employment in our local clothing and footwear trades, electrical engineering and metal goods has been more than counter-balanced by the growth in printing and publishing, the media, mechanical engineering and the exciting area of bio-technology research, which is centred on the university of East Anglia.
Today's unemployment figures show a continuing fall in unemployment in Norwich. Norwich suffered less in the recession of the late 1980s and early 1990s than other parts of the country. Forecasts by Norwich city council in September 1994 and the Norfolk and Waveney training and enterprise council last year suggest that Norwich and its surrounding area can expect a further growth in construction and the service sector in the next 10 years.
If those predictions are to be realised, good road communication is essential. Norwich is the biggest conurbation not to have direct access to the national dual carriageway network. The city's link with the region's most important port, the A47 to Great Yarmouth, is a single carriageway from Acle to Great Yarmouth, with a poor accident and congestion record.
Traffic movements on the A47 are expected to rise from the 15,000 a day in 1993, which was already above its designed capacity on undualled sections, to between 21,000 and 24,000 a day by 2001. Similarly, it is predicted that traffic movements on the A 11 will grow from about 20,000 a day to between 27,000 and 31,000 a day by the same date. They are potential increases in traffic of between 35 per cent. and 60 per cent.
Without significant improvement of both roads, increased traffic congestion will lead to longer delays in delivery times and poorer service from firms based in Norwich compared to those available from competitors operating in areas with better road networks. Companies, individuals and households will be penalised in time lost, lower competitiveness, lost job prospects and environmental damage.
Fuel consumption is inevitably higher on congested roads where there is slow stop-start travel. Recent research by the Centre for Economics and Business Research Ltd. demonstrates the environmental damage that will arise in urban areas from reduced spending on the road programme. The Government are rightly taking seriously the environmental arguments on traffic control and road structure, and that is fine. Nevertheless, my argument is environmental. Traffic jams on the A11 and the A47, caused by a single carriageway, long queues of traffic and accidents, lead to people travelling slowly and increased pollution. I certainly reject any environmental argument against the case that I am presenting.
Businesses in Norwich are acutely aware of the challenges of the major road network. Almost 35 per cent. of firms surveyed in Norwich in 1994 consider access to motorways, major transport links and ease of distribution the top factors in influencing their possible locations. That was the concern most frequently expressed by firms

taking part in the survey. A number of companies commented on the benefits of being somewhere where distribution would be easier, somewhere with a better road network. The eastern region of the CBI, covering more than 2,300 member companies, has come to the same conclusion.
There is no doubt that, during my 12 years as a Member of Parliament for Norwich, North, the issue that the business community has raised most regularly with me has been the one that I am raising tonight. That issue has been at the top of the business man's agenda since I have been a Member of Parliament.
Actively managed firms regretted the extra day or so that it took to reach their customers and some expressed the view that if they were starting again from scratch they would have preferred a location in the midlands.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk was Secretary of State for Transport and one of his predecessors described East Anglia as the Cinderella of the national road network. In spite of recent improvements, to which I shall refer in a moment, that is still true. It is not surprising that, in recent months, business leaders in Norwich have even been in touch with the Chairman of the Select Committee on Transport on that issue.
It was partly to address that issue that the Norwich area development agency was created in 1995. It has argued consistently for the upgrading of the A11 and the A47 to improve the region's economic ties with Holland, Denmark and the Baltic states and for a wider range of services from Norwich airport. Those pleas have had the support of the European Commission which recommended that the A47 should be included in the trans-European road network of routes of more than national importance to form one of the vital strategic routes throughout Europe. Norwich airport's links with offshore industries would certainly benefit from the dualling of that route. I, too, am happy to support that argument.
In case that should appear to be a rather gloomy introduction to this short speech, I should like to say that I do not wish to claim that the Government have done nothing to invest in the road network around Norwich or in Norfolk. I have had some difficulty in the past week in obtaining figures from the Department of Transport. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will not mind my referring to that, but it is difficult to collect together all the figures and I shall therefore be deliberately vague. In the past 10 years, about £100 million has been spent on the A11, about half of that in Norfolk, and somewhat more than £100 million on the A47, nearly all of that in Norfolk. That is pretty well all since the May 1989 White Paper "Roads to Prosperity".
The opening of Norwich's southern bypass and the completion of the newly constructed section of the A 11 between Stump Cross and Fourwentways have made a fantastic difference. As I mentioned earlier with regard to my journey from Norwich to London, once I reached the Newmarket area it was full—I had better be careful what I say because there was a lot of bad driving, and that is a subject for another Adjournment debate; but it was certainly a clear run all the way, and that is good.
The new Wymondham bypass, which will be opened shortly—I gather that it has been delayed a little—will be a great benefit to road commuters and to those commuting


to and from London. Links to Cambridge on the A11 and beyond, with the A 1 -M1 link to the west midlands, are rightly to the Government's credit. I hope that my hon. Friend recognises that I understand what has been done and I pay tribute and give thanks for that.
I also pay tribute to the tremendous work done in all this by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk in his capacity not only as a Norfolk Member of Parliament but as Secretary of State for Transport. I also welcome to the debate my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), who also has an interest in the A47 in particular and road links in general.
Even so, the announcement of the changes to the road programme in East Anglia following the Budget has caused concern to the Norwich area development agency and to a wide cross-section of business opinion in my constituency. Only one scheme on the A11 between Roudham Heath and Attleborough remains in the active programme, with all the other remaining improvements postponed to an uncertain future. On the A47, one scheme remains in the main programme, but it may well be put on hold, while seven further schemes are in the longer-term programme, and four more appear to have been abandoned entirely.
The position is that there are no new planned starts on any trunk road in Norfolk in the forthcoming financial year 1996–97. No private sector design, build, finance and operate schemes are envisaged for the county. Norwich and Norfolk lack the financial support to alleviate traffic bottlenecks and to remove danger spots. There is no prospect of a basic network of strategic dual carriageways being completed to link the county with the national or international route network until well into the next century.

Mr. Henry Bellingham: The Minister will soon open a new road—the A47 west of King's Lynn—in my constituency. However, a number of my constituents are concerned about the delays over the Hardwick flyover on the A47—a scheme that all the environmentalists support. My constituents often say, "In other parts of the country people do not want roads, such as the Newbury bypass. Why not build a road where there is overwhelming support?" It would not be an expensive scheme and it has gone through its planning stages. I am sure that the Minister will support my campaign to have that road built soon.

Mr. Thompson: I support the case put by my hon. Friend. The A47 has an appalling accident rate and causes great delays. In fact, a lot of the traffic that should use the A47 diverts on to the A14 and comes through to Great Yarmouth. When the business community in my constituency tell me that this situation is not good enough, I have to agree with them. Road links to Norwich have had a low priority in the past, and that is why we have this problem. This is not the time to abandon the push for improvements. The campaign must be stepped up so that the Government accept that they must look again at their priorities.
I am campaigning on behalf of businesses in Norwich. I hope to receive an early reply from my hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads to my questions. When

will works on the schemes remaining in the main program start? What does "likely to be put on hold" mean in terms of programme timing? Does my hon. Friend recognise the serious economic, environmental and safety consequences of the lack of capacity on these trunk roads? I look forward to my hon. Friend's reply, and I thank him for being present tonight.

Mr. John MacGregor: During my time in this House—including when I was the Secretary of State for Transport—I have sought to improve the road links from Norfolk and to gain the bypasses that are needed. I demonstrate the priority that I attach to this issue by spending my birthday participating in the Adjournment debate. There have been substantial improvements to the roads in my constituency, with the introduction of bypasses—which make a great difference to rural towns and villages—and the improvements to the A11.
Now that we have improved those roads, we need to finish the job. If we do not, the perception that Norfolk is far way will continue to exist. That is why it is important to complete the links and the bypasses on the A11 and the A47. There is an impression in Norfolk county council that, Government policy at the moment is against bypasses. An important county council bypass on the A413 still has not been completed. There have been bypasses on the rest of the road, but the village of Broome is facing real difficulties.
Last October, the Secretary of State for Transport told me, "I recognise that rural bypasses will continue to be important." It is important that that message gets through to Norfolk county council in drawing up its priorities. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would confirm that that is the Government's approach to bypasses.

The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) on securing the debate. I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) on spending his birthday with us.
My hon. Friend expressed concern about the effect that managing the trunk road programme announcement has had on the various schemes to improve the A11 and the A47 leading to Norwich. It may help if I explain briefly the background to the announcement that was made at the time of the Budget by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. A combination of sharply rising road construction costs and a continuing need to keep firm control of public expenditure, necessitated a review of the trunk road programme.
The new programme has been targeted at key routes, and primarily at making the best possible use of the existing network. The new national programme includes a significant number of bypasses, but many very desirable and strongly supported schemes have had to be deferred or withdrawn altogether.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk asked about our commitment to bypasses. I can assure him that we remain committed to funding local bypasses as far as resources permit, as that is often the best method of dealing with traffic congestion and improving the environment in rural areas. As a demonstration of that,


I can tell my right hon. Friend that bypasses account for nearly one third of the road schemes currently being funded by transport supplementary grant—a total of 48 out of 147 schemes. I must point out also that in the tight 1996–97 public expenditure settlement, we have still managed to approve five new rural bypasses for TSG. It is for the local highways authority to decide on the priority that it wishes to give to promoting bypasses when putting its bids to us. About a quarter of the trunk road programme is devoted to bypass schemes.
Our main priorities for East Anglia are the Al4 and the M11-A11. In recent years, the No. 1 priority for East Anglia has been the A14. That dual carriageway trunk road all the way from the M1-M6 junction to Felixstowe is one of the key strategic routes for the region.
We have five further schemes in the programme for capacity and safety improvements on the route. Those are the Thrapston to Brampton grade separated junction, the A14/M11-A10 widening, the A14(M) Bar Hill-M1/A1 link, the A 1 4 Quarries Cross GSJ and the Rookery crossroads GSJ.
The A14 is also one of the 14 Christophersen priority projects for the European Community and it is eligible for some funding from the trans-European networks budget.
As well as constructing that major new route, to open up East Anglia to the west midlands and elsewhere, we have been investing significantly nearer to the homes of my right hon and hon. Friends. In the past five years, we have spent over £180 million on improvements to trunk roads in Norfolk alone.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North will be pleased to learn that our next priority in the region is the M11-A11 route from London to Norwich. The priority placed upon that route is widely accepted in the region, as it is the key route to Norwich, and thence on to the coast.
We are making great strides with the dualling of the A 11 from south of Cambridge, with eight of the 12 schemes already opened. Just before Christmas, I opened the latest section, the Stumps Cross-Fourwentways scheme, which I am sure my right hon. and hon. Friends have used. Another, the Besthorpe-Wymondham improvement scheme, is also nearing completion and will be opened very shortly.
That will leave us with only three schemes to complete the dualling of the A11 from the M11 to Norwich. All those schemes have been retained in the main programme. The most advanced of those, the Roudham Heath-Attleborough improvement scheme, is ready to start when funds become available. The others—the A11 Attleborough bypass dualling and the Fiveways to Thetford improvement—will follow, and it remains our firm intention to complete the dualling of that key route.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North asked me to explain what was meant by the term "on hold". When looking at the main road programme, we must try to ensure that we have the right number of schemes reaching the start of work stage to match the funding that we think will be available to start construction. If we take schemes through their preparation stages too quickly, we build up a backlog and the expenditure could be aborted, particularly if we have made orders for compulsory purchase and they time-expire. That means that we have too many other schemes at the same stage.
We shall move forward at the appropriate pace so as to be ready when funding is likely to be available for construction.
Our third priority in the region is the A47. I am sorry that we have not been able to make as much progress as we had hoped, and I recognise that the long-cherished hopes of many local businesses and authorities for a complete dual carriageway route will not be immediately forthcoming.
However, it should be remembered that in recent years, we have spent some £150 million on schemes on the A47 in Cambridgeshire and Norfolk, between the A1 at Peterborough and Great Yarmouth. They include the Norwich southern bypass, which has not only greatly benefited the city, but considerably improved travel to the coastal towns of Great Yarmouth and, to a lesser degree, Lowestoft. There are other schemes in Cambridgeshire and Norfolk. They include the A47 East Dereham-North Tuddenham improvement, the Narborough improvement and the Walpole Highway-Tilney End bypass.
The latest scheme, the Walpole Highway-Tilney End bypass, is nearing completion and should be opened in a few weeks' time. There are also two further schemes in the main programme: the Hardwick roundabout flyover at King's Lynn, on which my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) has made such strong and repeated representations, and the Thorney bypass, in whose support my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) has made strenuous efforts.
I must disabuse my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk of the misconception that the Newbury bypass is not wanted. It is wanted by the overwhelming majority of the people of Newbury. In reality, there are few schemes in the programme that face significant opposition, except from those whom I call NIYBYs—the "not in your back yard" people who live nowhere near the area that suffers from the traffic, but who none the less wish to deny the bypass to those who would benefit from it.
All the other schemes on the A47 will be brought forward as the programme rolls on. However, I cannot give any undertakings at this stage about when schemes in the long-term programme can move into the main programme. However, where we have withdrawn major schemes or are unable to make rapid progress with them in the foreseeable future, as a matter of course we shall consider whether more limited improvements to the existing roads can be implemented to improve safety and to ease congestion.
In continuing to maintain the existing routes, we are currently constructing the A47-A1122 roundabout junction at Swaffham Heath, which should be completed this financial year. We also have proposals to provide a right-turn facility at Knarr Fen at an estimated cost of £220,000 and an addition of 1 m hardstrips between Thorney and Guyhirn, at an estimated cost of between £2 million and 3 million. That is all further evidence of our commitment to a realistic programme of improvements to the strategic routes serving Norwich on trunk roads.
We must not look solely to the trunk road network as being the only routes serving East Anglia and Norwich. My Department has provided considerable financial support for Norfolk county council schemes in recent years. In the past two years alone, support has been given


for the A143 Scole-Stuston bypass and the A143 Brockdish-Needham bypass, both of which are now open to traffic, and construction works are in progress on the A149 Ormesby bypass.
I am also pleased that, in the latest local transport settlement, we were able to continue to support the county council's package bid for Norwich for a second year—including the Cringleford park-and-ride scheme—with a further £2.3 million-worth of credit approvals.
I said earlier that it was vital that priorities were set within a realistic financial framework. We have done that in a responsible manner, concentrating our efforts on the key national routes. To retain schemes in the main

programme or the long-term programme that we know would have little realistic opportunity of being delivered would be to mislead people.
I know that my hon. Friend would not want me to excite expectations that could not be realised among his constituents. However, I can assure him that the needs of Norfolk and Norwich were very much in my mind in determining priorities in the trunk road programme. We shall continue to invest sensibly and carefully to meet the transport needs of the county and the East Anglia region of which it is an important part. Cinderella will go to the ball.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Eleven o'clock.